Chennai Court September 2000 Judgments
S. Balaji Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC890
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Writ petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners sponsored candidates to write next ensuing Regulation 9 examination under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 to be held in the year 2000 and thereafter thereby consequently directing the respondents to extend the validity of petitioner's temporary Custom House Agents Lincence No. 150/98 till such examination and publication of the result thereof. 3. Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Balaji Forwarders. The petitioner applied for the Customs House Agents Licence to the respondents on 13.1.1998 under Regulation 5 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The petitioner was granted that licence under Regulation 8 of the said Regulations, 1984 on 2.6.1998. This licence was valid for one year from its issue. Subsequently, it has been e...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balaji Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-1
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT36(Mad)
R. Govindarajan, J.1. By consent of both parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Writ petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners sponsored candidates to write next ensuing Regulation 9 examination under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 to be held in the year 2000 and thereafter thereby consequently directing the respondents to extend the validity of petitioner's temporary Custom House Agents Licence No. 150/98 till such examination and publication of the result thereof.3. Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Balaji Forwarders. The petitioner applied for the Customs House Agents Licence to the respondents on 13-1-1998 under Regulation 5 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The petitioner was granted that licence under Regulation 8 of the said Regulations, 1984 on 2-6-1998. This licence was valid for one year from its issue. Subsequently, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Vanitha B. Mehta and anr. Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ2078
K. Sampath, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 327 of 1991 filed by the appellants in C.M.A. No. 64 of 1996, who are the respondents in C.M.A. No. 272 of 1996, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 for the death of their daughter in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, which is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 272 of 1996. The claimants want enhancement while the respondent Corporation wants to be absolved of liability and in any event the quantum to be reduced.2. The case of the appellants was as follows:On 22.4.1990, their daughter Priya, was proceeding from north to south in a scooter with her sister Preethi on the pillion to her house, when an Express Bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing registration No. TCB 9723 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the two-wheeler from behind, as a result of which, the rider Priya fell on the right side and was run over by the vehicle, resulting in her deat...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Ponnaiah Nadar and Sons rep. by Its partner S.M.P. Arunachaiacham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC30
ORDER1.The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit as against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.93 made in A.S.No.2 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.3.82 made in O.S.No.597 of 1982 on the file of district Munsif Court, Periakulam. The respondent in the second appeal filed the suit for possessionof the suit property as well as the recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The learned District Munsif, Periakulam, on consideration of the facts decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Periakulam. The learned Sub Judge also confirmed the findings of the learned District Munsif and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3.2. When this second appeal came up for admission, Mr.P.Peppin Fernando representing the respondent took notice and ...
Tag this Judgment!Annammal and 2 Others Vs. Adhi Dravida Welfare Dept. Vellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC259
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners herein against the order of the Court below rejecting the application filed by them to bring them as legal heirs of the predeceased owner of the land.2. The predecessor in title of the petitioners one Manicka Mudaliar died on 6.12.1993. Since his lands were acquired and the compensation had been decided in L.A.O.P.No.82 of 1991 and the amount 'has also been deposited in the Court below,' the petitioners filed the application to implead themselves as legal heirs in order to withdraw the compensation amount. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that the petition to bring the legal representatives was not filed by the petitioners within three years and hence, the petition now filed is barred by limitation.3. On a careful consideration of the order of the Court below, I am-of the view that the same cannot be sustained. For the execution proceedings, it should be remembered that the provision prescribing the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›