Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Rama Devi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC129
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act made in G.O.Ms.No.976 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12.6.1991 and published in the Government Gazette dated 17.7.1991 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act made in G.O.Ms.No.573 Housing and Urban Development (L.A.II) dated 1.9.1992 and published in the Government Gazette dated 1.9.1992 and quash the same so far as they relate to the lands of the petitioner to an extent of 10 cents (0.40.0 hectares) in S.No.24-1 A.2 in No.101, Nalingapetta Agraharam, Hosur Taluk, Dhramapuri. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land in question from one Smt.Venkatamma who in turn purchased the said lands from one P.A.Viswanathan. The petitioner purchased the lands from the said Venkatamma on 16.7.1982. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though she has purchased the lands in question in the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Ganesh Raja Organisation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC71; 2000(122)ELT19(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is, 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the applicability of the ratio of the ruling of the Supreme court in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs : 1990(49)ELT640(SC) and also on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros. : 1983(13)ELT1456(SC) , whether the goods imported by the respondent would required a specific licence?'.2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee had a R.E.P. licence under which, it was entitled to import parts. What was imported were plastic extruded ball-point pen barrels, which were imported on 22-11-1990, plastic/ extruded ball-point pen knobs and caps, which were imported on 01.11.1990 and ball-point pen refills, which were imported on 21.07.1990, all of them were cleared by the Customs and the duty, if any leviable on those parts under the relevant classification were levied.3. Subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyapal Vs. State Through Inspector of Police Tirupapuliyur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC392; 2001(75)ECC744
ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in C.C.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court for NDPS cases, Thanjavur for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 3000 carrying a default sentence. The correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal before this Court. Heard Mr.A. PAckiaraj learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr.R. Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate appearing on the criminal side for the respondent/State.2. P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.3 is the Inspector ofPolice and he is the Investigating Officer as well. P.W.2 is the court clerk, whospeaks about the receipt of the case property and forwarding the same to thelaboratory for test. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 3 would show that P.W.3 wason a routine prohibition raid on 11.11.93; at about 4.00 p.m., they saw theaccused coming with a head load at Kamma...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Yennarkay Printers Pvt. Ltd., No. 5-2-15-e, Sattur Road, Sivakasi- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC52
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarai calling for the recourses of the respondents in proceedings No.B2/TN/20334/ENF/MDU/93 dated 2.2.1993 quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the managing Director of M/s Yennarkay Printers Private Limited at Sivakasi. In the premises where M/s Yennarkay Printers Private Limited is functioning, a partnership firm known as the M/s Standard Litho Works was functioning and the same was engaged in offset printing with four partners. The said partnership firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 13.4.1982. Clause 5 and 12 of the deed are asfollows: 'Clause 5: The partners hereby mutually agree that pioneer press private Limited is entitled to carry on the business of the undertaking as a successor on dissolution.' 'Clause 12: That the partners herein shall be at liberty to carry on the business of their own in the same or similar line or lines as that of the dissolved firm but the partners other th...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR972]; (2001)ILLJ616Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The above two appeals have been preferred against common order of the learned single Judge dated January 7, 2000 passed in W.P. Nos. 3626 and 8550 of 1998.2. The appellant earlier had one round of litigation relating to his non-employment which was ultimately concluded by the order of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 345 and 246 of 1992 wherein, while directing the second respondent herein to disburse the provident fund and gratuity to the appellant, the Court allowed the appellant to agitate his claim for his salary for a period of fifteen years from June, 1977 in lieu of reinstatement by filing necessary application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. C.P. No. 2089 of 1992 claiming a sum of Rs. 2,30,953 after deducting the amount already paid by the respondent was one such claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the appellant. He also filed another application in C.P. No. 131 of 1993 for a su...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumarasamy Gounder and 3 Others Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC351
ORDERl.In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent. Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Pallipalayam, dated 23.2.2000, to quash the same and to direct the third respondent to remove the concrete or other obstruction to the sluices of Kaliyanoor Agraharam irrigation En in S.No.104, Kaliyanoor Agraharam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District and to allow free flow of water for irrigation of Ayacut lands.2. According to the petitioners, all the petitioners are some of the ayacutdars of the said tank and due to acts of commissions and omissions of the respondents, the irrigation rights of all the petitioners were affected. The said Eri is an Irrigation tank to feed 28.84.5 hectares of wet lands which falls within the classification of irrigation tank. The tank receives water from-the adjacent fields and spill over water from Komarapalayam Eri. There are two sluices on the southern bound....
Tag this Judgment!Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Vs. Ashokraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4298
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This case arising of a suo motu contempt proceeding involving a chequered history needs narration.2. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. filed two suits in C. S. Nos. 424 of 1999 and 425 of 1999 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs each against the defendants. This is based on the Hire Purchase Agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants as per which the Tata Sumo Car and the truck owned by the plaintiff had been lent on hire with the defendants. As per the agreement, the defendants have to pay hire charges every month. In case of failure to pay the hire charges as and when becomes due, the plaintiff would be entitled to seize those vehicles as provided in the agreement. Since the defendants, after making payment of some instalments, failed to pay the remaining instalments in spite of notice, the plaintiff had filed these two suits. Two applications were also filed in those suits in Application Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1999 requesting this...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mariammal Vs. Padmanabhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Mad350
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The defendant who has lost before both the Courts below, has come forward with the instant Second Appeal. 2. This Second Appeal has arisen in this way one Athinarayanan had two sisters by name, Kamalatchi and Kuppammal. Kamalatchi was given in marriage one Perumal. Perumal, Kamalatchi couple had two sons and four daughters, by name Irulappan, Perlakaruppan, Chellammal, Mariammal (who is the appellant herein) Savurlammal and Ramayee. Irulappan had a daughter by name, Pushpam. Kuppammal was given in marriage to one Sermal. We are not concerned with Kuppammal's family. Athinarayanan's wife was one Gnanammal. Through Gnanammal, Athinarayanan begot three children, by name, Rajaiah, Padmanabhan. (the respondent herein), and Jothiammal, Jothiammal was given in marriage to one Velusamy. Jothiammal died on 15-4-1984 we are not concerned with Jothiammal's family also. Athinarayanan's wife Gnanammal was a Christian by birth, who was given in marriage to one Devasagay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›