Chennai Court August 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC60; 2000(115)ELT306(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges an order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) dated 10-1-1991 in Appeal No. C3/1031 to 1039/90. By the instant order, the Collector has disposed of all the nine appeals. The appeals were made for refund of (1) differential duties on landing charges; (2) refund of interest charges; and (3) refund of duty seeking the benefit of Customs Notification No. 60/87. The Appellate Authority rejected all the three heads. The present writ petition, however, is restricted only to the refund of differential duty on landing charges. The Appellate Authority rejected the refund of differential duty on landing charges on the basis of order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CEGAT' dated 16-9-1988 vide : Order No. 475/1988 feeling bound by the said order. The issue raised in this writ petition is about the correctness of the order of CEGAT which was binding on the Appellate Au...
Sivashanmugham Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC406
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, dismissing the claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep belonged to the respondent/the Superintendent of Police/North Arcot, Ambedkar District, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the same and to award the compensation claimed by him.2. The facts are these:Sivashanmugam, the claimant, was working as an Assistant in I.T.I. On 13.1.1989 at about 4.00 p.m., he was proceeding from Vellore by riding on his cycle. When he was nearing Super Market at Sathuvachari, the jeep bearing registration No. TNM 4275 P.C R. Unit, Vellore, came from behind in the same direction at a high speed even without sounding the horn. Suddenly, the jeep came to the wrong side, since the driver lost control over the jeep and hit against the claimant, as a result of which, he was thrown off. Due to ...
Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Vs. Meenaksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC737
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. The claimants, the widow and the son of the deceased, filed a claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus, belonging to the appellant-Corporation.3. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 47,400/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the award on the ground of negligence and of quantum, the appeal has been filed before this Court.4. Navan, aged about 55 years, is the deceased in this case. He was ah agriculturist. He was hailing from Thillaividangan Village, Chidambaram Taluk. On 22.4.1991, at about 4 p.m., the deceased-Navan, along with his wife, travelled in the bus, bearing Registration No. TML 8720, proceeding from Varahoor to Chidambaram. They were sitting in the last seat. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the bus was going in the road with heavy jolting. Between Kuyavanpattai an...
S. Ganesan Vs. Assistant Commissioner Excise, Collectorate, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC193
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. In this batch of writ appeals directed against the common order made by the learned single Judge on 9.7.1998 in W.P.Nos.5071, 6809,6963,7158,7571,7454,7470,7483,7728,7724,7629,7963,8118,8142, 8235,8236 and 8409 of 1998, the question raised is regarding the validity and scope of Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') in so far as that Rule requires the person, in whose favour the sale of the privilege of vending Indian made Foreign Liquor in retail is confirmed, to produce a certificate in Form No. III from the Excise Officers, or an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Tahsildar duly authorised by the Collector regarding the suitability and also ownership or lease of the building for not less than a year of the shop from where he intends to sell liquor, and the further requirement in that Rule that a xerox copy of the document showing that the auction purchaser him...
Singaram @ Velayudha Udayar and Two Others Vs. Subramaniam and Three O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC136; I(2000)DMC172
ORDER1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 484 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem are the appellants herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit for partition and separate allotment claiming 5/12th share in the suit property. They put forth their claim for partition on the ground that the suit property belongs to one Karuppa Udayar and his sons Nainamalai and Velayutham as joint family property. After the death of the said Karuppa Udayar, his two sons Nainamalai and Velayutham are entitled to have equal share in the suit property. The first plaintiff in the suit is the son of Nainamalai and the second plaintiff is his widow. The third defendant is the wife of Karuppa Udayar who is entitled to 1/3rd share.2. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit stating that Nainamalai married one Pappathiammal, the fourth defendant in the suit as his second wife and got a son through her by name Arunachalam, the fifth defendant in the suit. Since the defendants 4 and 5 are also ent...
Canara Bank, T. Nagar, Madras-17, Rep by Its Manager Vs. the Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC193
ORDER1. An interesting question namely whether the charge created on the properties in pursuance of section 24(1) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tamil Nadu Act') will prevail over a charge created under a mortgage of the very same properties in favour of the petitioner Bank which is prior in point of time, is to be decided in this writ petition.2. Petitioner Canara Bank has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to forbear from selling the properties of the 2nd respondent or taking any further steps in the sale of the scheduledmentioned properties in pursuance of Form No.VI A notice, to sell the land dated 17.11.1990 issued by the first respondent.3. The brief facts are stated hereunder: The second respondent have been enjoying certain credit facilities from the petitioner Bank. The said Company was granted on 11.7.1974 and earning cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 50,000 on the 2nd respondent hy...
S. Ramalingam Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC87
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of ceriorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.H3/123983/94 dated 21.12.1998 and quash the particular portion of the impugned order denying me monetary benefits from 8.11.1994 and direct the respondent to sanction the monetary benefits from 8.11.1994 and pay the arrears of pay and allowances of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. There is not much of factual controversy. The petitioner approached this Court on the earlier occasion and filed W.P.No.6350 of 1995. By order dated 29.10.1998, the learned single Judge of this Court ultimately held thus:- I am of the opinion that the action of the first respondent in not including the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) for the year 1994 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I sustain the contention raised by thelearned Counsel for the petitioner. I have alre...
Management, Melur Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ920Mad; (1999)3MLJ783
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern W.P. Nos. 3752 and 3890 of 1991 as the question is common, though, it concerns different parties. The second respondent in both the writ petitions were employees of the petitioner. They were dismissed by separate orders on October 18, 1983 and therefore, they filed appeals before the appellate authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 which appeals came to be registered as TNSE Nos. 3 and 4 of 1984. Both these appeals were delayed and in both these appeals, similar application for condonation of delay was filed on November 25, 1983. The appeals were adjourned from time to time at the instance of the respondent employees and when the appeals were posted on September 25, 1985, the respondent employees in both the appeals were not present. With the result, the appeals had to be adjourned to October 9, 1985 and when even on that date, nobody was present on behalf of the respondent employees, the appeal...
Sennampatty Milk Producers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Presiding Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR315]; (2001)IIILLJ165Mad
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the award dated May 6, 1991 made in I.D.No. 73 of 1985 on the file of the first respondent.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the second respondent herein was employed as Secretary of the petitioner Society. The second respondent was suspended for misconduct on September 27, 1983. Show cause notice was issued on June 21, 1984 alleging misappropriation of sum of Rs. 1,429. The second respondent has submitted his explanation on July 2, 1984. Enquiry was conducted and in pursuance of the enquiry, the second respondent was dismissed from service on August 23, 1984. The second respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore challenging the order of termination passed by the society which was taken on file as I.D.No. 73 of 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner herein has filed a counter and documents relatin...
Aravindadevi, J. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR73]; (2000)IILLJ1264Mad
N.V. Balasubrmanian, J.1. The petitioner is the sole proprietrix of the establishment styled Murugan Transport. According to the petitioner, the business earlier was done by her father-in-law and after his death she became the sole proprietrix of the said business. She has changed the name of the business of Murugan Transport from Murugan Service, in which name her father-in-law was carrying on the business and he gave the said business to her mother-in-law and the mother-in-law closed the business and there is only one business in the name and style, Murugan Transport carried on by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the employees of Murugan Service were covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Provident Funds Act'), and on account of nationalisation of bus routes the petitioner was left with only one bus route with two drivers and two conductors and there are no other employees...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »