Court : Chennai
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.524
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. Mr. Justice Bakewell sitting in the Insolvency Court has held that under the new Insolvency Act III of 1909, he has no jurisdiction to try the question whether certain property situate outside the local limits of the original civil jurisdiction of this Court belongs to the insolvent, it being alleged by the Official Assignee that the purchase in the name of the insolvent's wife, effected three or tour years before the petition in insolvency was filed, was merely benami for the insolvent himself. He was of opinion that though admittedly the old Act 11 and 12 Victoria, Chapter 21, gave a discretion to the Judge sitting in the Insolvency Court to exercise jurisdiction in such cases over third parties, the present Insolvency Act has made a change in the law and all questions arising between the Official Assignee and third parties must be dealt with by the ordinary Civil Court which has jurisdiction over the matter. With all respect to the learned Judge, it seems t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000CriLJ1201
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli against Panchu alias Panchanathan under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The Detaining Authority has given detailed reasons in support of the order. However, we need not go into the said reasons in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted himself to a singular attack of technical nature.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mandatory provision of Section 3(5) of the Act has been breached in this case inasmuch as the report of the detention order or the approval thereof by the State Government has not reached the Central Government within seven days from the date of detention order or the approval. It is contended in the Counter filed on behalf of the Union of India in paragraph 3 that the report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)1MLJ241
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1987 made in R.C.A. No. 10 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 15.12.1992 made in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 1986 by the Rent Controller and Additional District Munsif, Madurai.2. The landlord has filed the rent control original application before the Rent Controller against his tenant for eviction of the premises bearing door No. 60 of South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on averments that the said premises belongs to him under a Will dated 9.2.1951, that since being a minor the property was looked after by his father Kanagavel; that the respondent became the tenant of the premises for running his lorry booking office on terms that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas401(Mad); 2002(146)ELT287(Mad); [2004]52SCL186(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents 1, 2 and 5 from taking steps including enforcement encashing or appropriation and the third and fourth respondents from paying the amounts pursuant to the invocation of indemnity cum surety bonds (1) dated 4-5-1992 for a value of Rs. 2,64,04,000/- in respect of Licence No. P/CG/2129184, dated 27-1-1992 issued by third respondent Bank and (2) dated 3-2-1993 for a value of Rs. 40,04,000/- in respect of Licence No. P/CG/2100383, dated 31-7-1992 issued by the fourth respondent Bank issued in favour of the second respondent pending finalisation of Rehabilitation package scheme before the BIFR without the consent of BIFR and until the expiry of the extended period till 2002, within which the petitioner has to comply with the export obligations with reference to which the Indemnity cum Surety bonds were furnished.2. This Court granted interim injunction on 2-11-1999 in W.M.P. No. 256...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(169)LC205(Madras)
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in C. No. VIII/10/368/04-Adj, C. No. VIII/10/367/04-Adj, C. No. VIII/10/366/04-Adj and C. No. VIII/10/365/04-Adj respectively dated 24.12.2004 and quash the same.2. In view of the interconnectivity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.3. The petitioners are manufacturers of refined Palm Oil of Edible Grade, for which the petitioners were issued RBD Palmolein. The petitioners' requirement was met by imports from Malaysia and Indonesia through Tuticorin Port.4. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have cleared their import of RBD Palmolein by claiming exemption under notification No. 45/2002, Customs, dated 22.04.2002 as amended from time to time. The said notification provides for clearance of the import...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2002]112CompCas450(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rule 11A of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking an order to relieve the petitioner of his liability in relation to the offence under Section 233B read with the Cost Audit (Report) Rules, 1968.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :According to the petitioner, he is the managing director of M/s. Kwality Spinning Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'company'). The company was incorporated as a private limited company on June 26, 1958, and has become a public limited company by virtue of the provisions of section 43A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, with effect from December 30, 1989. Under Section 233B of the Companies Act, it is provided for an audit of cost accounts in certain cases. The Central Government in exercise of their powers given under Section 233B(4) read with Section 27(1) and 642(1)(b) of the Companies Act, framed the Cost Audit (Report) Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)4MLJ539
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner manufactures ayurvedic preparations and claims to be a hereditary Vaidyar. He had earier prepared Dasamoolarishtam, Abhayarishtam, Amritharishtam and Kalyanakudam. Now, he is preparing Kanakasavam and Jeerakarishtam. He claims that they are all 'unrestricted preparations' and are not found in the list of 'restricted preparations' given in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Rules (Rules in short). In Kanyakumari District, from which the petitioner hails, the ayurvedic preparations are mainly unrestricted preparations since manufacture of restricted preparations involves expenditure. Restricted preparations are mainly manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies and the process involves distillation or addition of alcohol. The unrestricted preparations of the petitioner are manufactured using medicinal plant parts such as leaves, stems, seeds, fruits, roots, nuts, etc. and by adding water and by keeping the mixture under fermen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
The petitioner is the wife of one Murugesan, who is the life convict and lodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and his convict number is 6789. The petitioner's husband was convicted in Crime No.300 of 1984 on the file of the Mathiyapagam Police Station, Thoothukudi. He was tried before the Sessions court, Tirunelveli in S.C. Case No.95 of 1985 and was awarded death sentence for the offence involved under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The matter was taken on appeal to this court being Criminal Appeal No.926 of 1985, wherein the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to one of life sentence. In this writ petition, she has sought for a direction to the first respondent State to treat that her husband was eligible for pre-mature release in terms of G.O.Ms.No.873, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 14.09.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.1326, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 12.09.2007. 2.When the matter came up on 16.12.2010, this court had ordered notice of motion. Pending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Salem, in R.C.A.No.9 of 2007 confirming the order of eviction dated 9.1.2007 passed by the First Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller), Salem, in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDERInveighing the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Salem, in R.C.A.No.9 of 2007 confirming the order of eviction dated 9.1.2007 passed by the First Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller), Salem, in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focused.2. A recapitulation and r esume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondent/landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005 as against the revision petitioner/tenant for obtaining delivery of possession of the three premises bearing door Nos.77, 78 and 80-A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition No.2268 of 2015: This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for calling of entire records relating to the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent in Crl.M.P.No.4/NSA/E4 dated 16.07.2015 detaining the petitioner/detenue-Shyna @ Shyni @ Shoba @ Rajee, aged about 42 years, W/o. Roopesh @ Prasanth @ Praveen @ Prakash @ Ruban @ Kariyan and for issuance of a writ setting aside the said order of detention and to set the petitioner/detenue, who has been now confirmed at Central Prison, Coimbatore, at liberty forthwith.) Common Order: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. In all these Habeas Corpus Petitions, the preventive detention orders passed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of The National Security Act, 1980 [Central Act 65 of 1980], by the 3rd respondent are under challenge. 2.0 The circumstances under which these detention orders came to be issued by the 3rd respondent are, in brief, as follows:- 2.1. On 04.05.2015 at about 03.00 ...
Tag this Judgment!