Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT564(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Assessee, a manufacturer of earth moving equipments imported dumpers in knocked down condition. The goods were brought by ship to the Port of Madras on 16-4-1981. The assessee paid duty and obtained the order for clearance out on that very date. The goods were removed from the Port Trust premises 2 months later on 8-6-1981 and 4-7-1981 and transported to the assessee's factory at Kolar Gold Fields in Karnataka.2. According to the assessee, on 21-4-1981 and 22-4-1981 the goods were examined by the assessee, its Steamer Agent, Surveyors, Insurance Agents and Customs Officials and it was at that time found, that out of the 18 packages, 2 packages were in good condition, and that goods contained in 14 packages were severely damaged. The examination took place about five days after the order of clearance had been given to the Customs. The report on which the assessee relied is not one which has been endorsed by any of the Customs Officials. It is only the claim of th...
Tag this Judgment!Pethu Chettiar Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravida We ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC456
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed, seeking to quash the impugned acquisitionproceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as'the Act', with respect to the petitioner's land bearing re-survey No.180,Keelbuvanagiri river-bed.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned acquisition proceedings on three grounds, namely, (1) the entire process commencing with the issue of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and ending with the publication of the Notification in the locality has not been done within 60 days as contemplated under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and so the entire proceedings are vitiated; (2) no sufficient time has been given to the petitioner to file his objections; and (3) the notice issued for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not in accordance with law, as, in the said notice, it has been stated as if it has been issued under Act 31 of 1978.3. Though under the Central Act, namely, the Land Acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rani Bai and 27 Others Vs. the Executive Engineer Hosur Housing Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC603
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. Since the issue is common in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order.3. Aggrieved by the letter of the Allottee Service Manger, Tamil Nadu Housing Board directing the petitioners to pay the difference in final cost inrespect of their houses allotted by the Housing Board, they filed the above writ petitions.4. For the convenience, I shall refer the facts of the case in W.P.No.20841 of 1998. It is stated that the respondent in the year 1997 have called for applications for the allotment of house at the outright purchase basis in Virupakshipuram Neighbourhood Scheme. He preferred an application for allotment of house on the outright purchase basis. His application was considered on merits and the respondent have made an allotment on 29.6.1988 in his favour. He had been allotted a house bearing No.HIG - 12 at Virupakshipuram Neighbourhood Sche...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers (Co- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC738; [2001(88)FLR620]; (2000)IILLJ1451Mad
ORDER1. Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited is the petitioner in both the writ petition W, P.No.2050 of 1994 is directed against the proceedings of the first respondent in T.S.N6. 21 of 1992 dated 31.5.93 while Writ Petition No.4459 of 1996 filed by the very same petitioner is against the consequential order in C.P.No.190 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras.2. The case of the petitioner-Management is briefly stated hereunder:-Writ Petition No.2050 of 1994 is preferred against the order of reinstatement of the second respondent made by the first respondent in T.S.No.21 of 1992 dated 31.5.93. The same was ordered, in the appeal preferred by the second respondent against the orders of termination dated 6.7.91 made by thepetitioner after having found that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.15,000 belonging to the petitioner. The second respondent who was. working as Assistant Manager at the stores of the petitioner admitted his guilt before t...
Tag this Judgment!Annamuthammal and Four Others Vs. Annadurai and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC167
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.284 of 1985 and the defendants in O.S.No.381 of 1985, both suits on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti, are the respective appellants in the two second appeals.2. It is not necessary to go into details leading to the filing of the second appeals. Suffice it to say that the decision in the appeals depends on the interpretation of a settlement deed marked as Ex.A.1 dated 30.7.1931 in the suits. The question is as to whether Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act would be attracted 'in interpreting Ex.A.1? Ex.A.1 is asettlement deed executed by one Sadayandi @ Annamalai and his brother Poilon in favour of their sister. Unnamalai Ammal. As per the terms of the settlement deed, the settlee Unnamalai, Ammal is to enjoy the property during her lifetime without powers of alienation and after her lifetime, her issue will have to take the property absolutely and in case she died issueless, the property would revert to the brothers Sa...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.C. Parcel Service Vs. Poongothai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1774
K. Sampath, J.1. The respondent No. 3 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 168 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pondicherry, is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed the said petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 for the death of one Muthu alias Muthukrishnan, husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and the appellant herein. The respondent No. 8 was the respondent No. 4 in the M.A.C.T.O.P. being the mother of the deceased and the respondent No. 9 was the respondent No. 5 and it was alleged that she was the concubine of the deceased.2. The case of the claimants was as follows:Muthu alias Muthukrishnan was travelling with the respondent No. 9 herein on his Jawa motor cycle along Pondicherry-Villupuram Main Road on 22.6.1987 at about 15.30 hours on the extreme left hand side when the vehicle bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Onida Savak Ltd. Vs. Muthumeera Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas434(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The applicant/defendant has filed this application to pass an order staying the proceedings in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and directing release to the applicant-company of the amount of Rs. 10,80,101.40.2. The case in brief is as follows :The applicant-company has incurred heavy financial loss during the years 1996-1999. As per the balance-sheet, the company has become a sick company. The company in its annual general body meeting adopted the accounts and filed a reference for rehabilitation before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA, 1985). It was registered as Case No. 191 of 1999. Further, the stocks of washing machines lifted by the applicant from the godown of the plaintiff were defective. The applicant-company received complaints from consumers with regard to t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaranarayanan R. Vs. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR131]; (2001)ILLJ1028Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, reported in 2000 (3) L.L.N. 221, whereby, he has allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent. By impugned judgment, the order in favour of the appellant, reinstating him into service, passed by the Labour Court, was set aside and it was held that the petitioner (first respondent herein) was justified on facts in dismissing the workman.2. In this writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has severely criticised the order of the learned single Judge as depriving a workman of his rightful employment, which was favourably seen by the Labour Court. It is the contention that the Labour Court had used its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the discretion granted under the provisions of the Act while exercising his jurisdiction under Article 226. It was pointed out that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaycee Engg. Services Vs. Cegat, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT53(Mad)
ORDER1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Order No. 539/1992, dated 30-10-92 and order passed in E/Ros/866/93 in E/Stay/147/92, dated 7-4-93 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Though in this case the respondent has been served as early as on 31-3-94, there is no representation on behalf of them till this date.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers, I have also taken into ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tamil Nadu Gears and Shafts Corporation Vs. Presiding Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1689Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-management herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in I. D. No. 188 of 1988 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the award dated July 6, 1992, in I.D. No. 188 of 1988.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent, though they have been served notice long back.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent, the matter has to be decided on merits.4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »