Court : Chennai
Common Judgment: Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 02.06.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the two Writ Petitions instituted by the appellant herein in W.P. Nos.30789 and 30790 of 2016. 2. Writ Appeal No.821 of 2016 arises out of W.P.No.30789 of 2016, which is directed against the Order in Original dated 02.06.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Customs House, Chennai, with a prayer for quashing it and a consequential direction was also sought for to the Respondents to unconditionally release the goods covered under the Bill of Entry No.3611465 dated 22.10.2013. Whereas Writ Appeal No.822 of 2016 arises out of W.P.No.30790 of 2016, which in turn is directed against the order passed on 09.09.2015 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2), Customs House, Chennai, with a direction to provisionally release the good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed to set aside the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, Special Court under E.C., and NDPS Act, Chennai-104.) 1. The instant Appeal has been instituted against the judgment dated 12.12.2012 rendered by the Principal Special Court under E.C., and NDPS Act, Chennai-104, in C.C.No.103 of 2008 whereby the appellant/accused who was charged with and tried for commission of offences u/s.8 (c) r/w. 20(b) (ii) ( C ) of NDPS Act, 1985 and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-,(Rupees One Lakh only), in default, to pay a fine amount, to undergo further R.I., for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that: On 08.02.2008, the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB, CID., Tr.Kannan was on duty in the Station, at about 10.00 a.m., he had received an information from his informant that one person was carrying ganja. The information...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2000Mad78; 1999(1)CTC238
ORDERJudgement pronounced by E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ appeal notice of motion was ordered on 24.6.1998. The respondents have entered appearance. With the consent of the counsel appearing for either side the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 9.7.1997 made in W.P.No.17029 of 1994, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. For convenience the parties will be referred as arrayed in the writ petition.3. The writ petitioners in all three in numbers have joined together and filed W.P.No. 17029 of 1994 praying for the issue of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the proceedings of the first respondent in ARC. No.825 of 1991 dated 5.7.1993 and Lr. No. 36627/CL/94-1 dated 7.9.1994 of the third respondent quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding further.4. Admittedly, the second respondent in the writ petition is the Foreman and a registered Chit Company. One Sivasubramaniam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3150
ORDER1. Paul M. A. Anthony, a Srilanka National, the respondent herein on 5-6-1990 at about 7-45 a.m. presented his baggage for Customs export examination at the Trichy airport for boarding Air Lanka Flight UL 132 bound for Colombo. Since his behaviour was not normal, the Counter Officer had reason to believe that he had concealed some contraband in his baggage. On being interrogated whether he had any contraband in his person or baggage, he replied in the negative. Thereupon, the Counter Officer examined his baggage in the presence of two independent witnesses and among other things, it was found to contain three eversilver lamps (Kuthuvilakku). As the lamps appeared to weigh more than what they should normally be, the Officer examined them in detail and found brown colour powder kept concealed in the three lamps, each weighing 75 gms, 75 gms and 71 gms, and a stinking smell emanated from the powder. When questioned, he is stated to have admitted that they were narcotic substances and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad16; (1958)IIMLJ330
1. These are sixty five appeals and four memoranda of cross-objections, and relate to two big Land Acquisitions resulting in the two batches of appeals and memoranda of cross objections. The first big land acquisition is what can be shortly called the Mandavalli scheme, for building houses by the Madras City Improvement Trust. This covers an area of 1400 grounds of land bounded on the east by the South Beach Road, on the west by Broadies Road, on the north by Mandavalli street and the Mada Church Road, and on the south by the Adyar river backwaters.The properties acquired are mostly vacant lands, but in some of the cases there were also structures, like houses and compound walls, and in some also wells for which compensation was claimed and awarded. The date of the notification under Section 47 of the City Improvement Trust Act of 1945. which was held by the Land Acquisition Officer to be the relevant date for determining the market valuation of the lands, as under Section 4(1) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2679
Mishra, J. 1. Whether the grounds merited the petitioner's detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereafter referred to as 'the Act' and whether the petitioner was rightly detained, are questions that we think are not required to be considered at all. Facts pertinent for the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not touch the grounds at all. For an alleged incident involving violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody on 17-1-1990. For the reasons and grounds emanating from the facts that were noticed in the incident dt. 15-1-1990, the Central Government ordered for petitioner's detention on 23-3-1990. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was taken in custody on 4-6-1990. On receipt of the grounds of detention and the documents supporting the order of detention, the petitioner made a representation on 5-7-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad271
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a revision petition which is sought to be filed against the decree and Judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in S. C. S. No. 504 of 1953. 2. The facts are: On 27-10-1949 the plaintiff, 'a merchant at Tuticorin, placed a telegraphic order with the defendants' firm at Kanpur for one wagon of 'dry peas dhall superior without broken or dankie'. The first defendant accepted the order and contracted to supply the goods specified. On 7-11-1949 the plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs. 1000 through the Central Bank of India to the defendants as advance of the sale price of the contracted goods. On the goods arriving at Tuticorin the plaintiff inspected the goods and found them to be Inferior, broken and dankie mixed with husk. Thereupon the plaintiff called in Sri Subbier, P. W. 2, the defendants' Tuticorin representative, and he inspected the goods and satisfied himself that the complaint of the plaintiff was well founded. The plaintiff refu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1981)IILLJ367Mad
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, quashing the circular No. 2/8 dated 3-1-1978 issued by the Personnel Department of the respondent-Bank and directing them to give full credit to the salaries of the petitioner and other Award Staff affected under the circular in the month of December, 1977 in the petitioner's and other Award Staff's respective accounts in the respondent-Bank, without any deductions as stated in the circular dated 3-1-1978 issued by the Personnel Department of the respondent-Bank. 2. The prayer has come to be projected on the background of the following facts : The respondent-Bank is a nationalised Bank. The petitioner was an Award Staff working in the Harbour Branch of the respondent-Bank as a cashier. Pursuant to a call given by the All India Bank Employees' Association, the employees (Award Staff of all Nationalised Banks in the country) proposed to stage a demonstration for limited hours in December, 1977, dema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad419
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition purporting to bo filed under Section 28, Administrator-General's Act of 1913.2. The facts are: Sri. T. Rangaswami Chettiar died at Madras on 29-6-1933. He left a will dated 1-5-1933 disposing of six immovable properties in Madras valued at Rs. 24,800/-. Under this willno executor was appointed. The testator left surviving himself his daughter Gyanambal, the petitioner herein, and a grand-daughter Swarnambal, and no other kith or kin. By the said will this Rangaswami Chettiar bequeathed a life estate in the income from the said properties to his daughter Gyanambal and a similar life estate to his granddaughter Swarnambal and the remainder for the children born to that Swarnambal. In case Swarnambal died without issue, male or female, the properties were to go in equal shares to certain charities. This contingency is extremely unlikely to happen as this Swarnambal had already four minor children, and their father Thirunavukarasy Chettiar, the guardian o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC269
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of iron and steel items including shutter lathe sections. According to the petitioner, the relevant Central Excise Tariff applicable to the manufacture of shutter lathe section would be item 26-AA(ia). But when the residuary tariff item 68 was introduced in the year 1975, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, by his order dated 17-7-1976, classified the said product under tariff item 68. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector and by the Order dt. 23-12-1977, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for fresh disposal. But once again the Assistant Collector, by his order dated 23-2-1979, held that the item is classifiable under tariff item 68 which necessitated the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Collector and on a direction from the Appellate Collector by his order dated 16-1-1980, the Assistant Collector visited the factory of the petitioner on 25-...
Tag this Judgment!