Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1990Mad115
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The defendants appeal from a common Judgment of Shanmukham, J., in C.S. Nos. 31 and 33 of 1974.2. Originally these suits were instituted inthe City Civil Court, Madras, and were transferred to this Court. C.S. No. 31 of 1974 is a suit for a declaration that the debt or debts in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs stood liable as sureties or otherwise in respect of the loan to Shree Bharathy Mills Limited, Pondicherry, for the appellant defendant is are no longer in existence, for a declaration that the arrangement between the appellant defendant and the principal debtor, Shree Bharathy Mills Ltd. represented by its Authorised Controller on 7-1-1967 and 23-1-1967 discharged the respondents/plaintiffs from all or any liability to the appellant/defendant bank as it, extinguished the original debt in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs undertook liability whether as sureties or otherwise, and for a direction to the appellant/defendant bank to hando...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ843
Subba Rao, J.1. Cr. M. P. 1309 of 1948 : This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The petitioner is A. K. Gopalan. He was the President of the Kerala Provincial Congress Committee in the year 1985. Later on, he became a communist and took a prominent part in the communist Organisation. On 17th December 1947 he was arrested by the TanaraBseri police and was charged under Section 117, Penal Code, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Caunanore, in p. R, C. No. 10 of 1947. It also appears that there were two other prosecutions pending against him in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry, under Section 506, Penal Code. On llth February 1948 he was released on bail by the High Court subject to certain conditions. On 18th March 1948, the conditions not having been com- plied with, the application for bail was dismissed. On 23rd April 1948 he was detained by an Order of the District Magistrate, Malabar, purport-ing to be under 8. 2 (l) (a), Madras Maintenance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad362
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This S. R. is sought to be filed as a Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15-10-1951, in the nature of an award, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, in C. L. No. 920/50-51.2. The High Court Office thereupon took two objections viz., that this Civil Revision petition has not been filed within 90 days of the date of the order and secondly, that it does not appear that a civil revision petition of this nature can be preferred on the foot of Article 227, Constitution of India.3. Taking the first point, there is a delay of 8 days and the learned advocate is directed to file a formal petition for excusing the delay and orders will be passed excusing the delay. This aspect of the case need not detain us further.4. The maintainability of this S. R. as a civil revision petition depends upon the decision whether it would be open to the High Court to revise, the order. Under Section 51(6)(a) of Madras Act 6 of 1932 any decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1994(46)ECC48; 1995(79)ELT387(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ159
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :- 'to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction of like nature of a writ, directing the second respondent to reship the consignment of 20 Tonnes each of raisins lying with the first respondent back to the supplier at Turkey after complying with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11-7-1991 in U.G. No. 8/CM/CAT 890/1189/91/TC ......' 2. The petitioner-Devasthanam obtained an import licence for the import of dried grapes (raisins) vide licence No. 0348730 dated 30-1-1989 for a value of Rs. 40 lakhs. The raisins to be imported by the petitioner-Devasthanam is for preparing prasadams like laddus, etc. As per the licence, the import has to be routed through the State Trading Corporation, the second respondent herein, and as such, the petitioner-Devasthanam had to import the dried grapes through the second respondent herein. The Execution Officer of the petitioner-Devasthanam sent a telex on 28-8-1990 to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad855; (1951)1MLJ450
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This appln. arises out of a petn. filed under Section 7, Madras Building (Lease and Bent Control) Act, for eviction in respect of premises belonging to the petnrs. in Mowbray's Road, Mylapore. It is a matter of admission that there has been default in due payment of rentwithin the meaning of Section 7 (2) (i). The petnra. would have been entitled to an order of eviction, but their petn. has been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the Act were not applicable to the premises in question as the pro. vincial Govt. are the tenants & are exempted from those provisions by a notfn. issued under Section 13 of the Act. 2. The only question which falls for decision on this appln. is whether this finding that theProvincial Govt. were the tenants of this building on the date of the appln. for eviction is correct. The relevant facts have to be ascertained from the correspondence which passed between the parties. On 27-5-1943 the Supdt. of Police, Spec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)1MLJ425
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil revision petition comes before us on a reference by Mohan, J., who heard, it, in the first instance, without finally deciding it. The revision petition raises an important and controversial question of law as to the effect of a notification issued on 12th August 1974 by the Tamil Nadu Government, under which buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable Institutions were exempted from all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In the instant case, eviction proceedings instituted under the Act against the tenant of a building owned by a Hindu Religious institution were pending before the Rent Controller on the date when the exemption was notified. The controversy between the parties was whether, on the issuance of the Government's notification, the eviction petition then pending before the Rent Controller abated or whether he had jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry and dispose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1982Mad399; (1982)2MLJ174
Ramanujam, J.1. This matter comes before us in the following circumstances. The petitioners and respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in C. S. No. 547 of 1979 on the file of this court which later stood transferred to the City Civil Court at Madras and numbered as 0. S. 2646 of 1981 as a result of the enhancement of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court by the City Civil Court Amendment Act (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1980). When the matter was pending before the City Civil Court an application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs in Tr. C. M. P. 4374 of 1981 under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India for withdrawal of the~ said suit from the City Civil Court for disposal by the High Court. The said application was allowed by a Division Bench of this court and the suit was withdrawn for disposal by this court. Since all cases which are transferred or withdrawn by the High Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution are to be heard by a Bench in view of O. 1, R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ46
Bakthavatsalam,J. 1. The defendants appeal from a common judgment of Shanmukham, J., in C.S.Nos.31 and 33 of 1974.2. Originally these suits were instituted in the City Civil Court, Madras, and were transferred to this Court. C.S. No. 31 of 1974 is a suit for a declaration that the debt or debts in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs stood liable as sureties or otherwise in respect of the loan to Shree Bharathy Mills Limited, Pondicherry, for the appellant defendant is/are no-longer in existence, for a declaration that the arrangement between the appellant/defendant and the principal debtor, Shree Bharathy Mills Ltd. represented by its Authorised Controller on 7.1.1967 and 23.1.1967 discharged the respondents/plaintiffs from all or any liability to the appellant/defendant bank as it extinguished the original debt in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs undertook liability whether as sureties or otherwise, and for a direction to the appellant/defendant bank to handover to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ97
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in certain interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners herein in claim petitions preferred by the first respondent in W.P. No. 1736 of 1969 and the second respondent in each of the remaining writ petitions. All the petitioners are owners of motor transport undertakings coming within the scope of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act XXVII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The first respondent in W.P. No. 1736 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 287 of 1967 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming overtime wages. The second respondent in W.P. No. 1829 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 399 of 1966 claiming difference in wages between the minimum wages payable to him and the wages actually paid to him. The second respondent in W.P. No. 1895 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 240 of 1967 claiming washing allowance provided for under Section 10(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(56)ECC24; 1997LC52(Madras); 1997(89)ELT28(Mad)
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed by the very same writ petitioner, challenging the show cause notices issued as also in one writ petition the constitutional validity of Section 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Several writ petitions relate to the various show cause notices issued for different periods and in other respects, the grounds of challenge are similar and identical. For a proper understanding of the grievance of the petitioner and an appreciation of the points urged on either side, it would be useful to refer to the facts pertaining to W.P. Nos. 11017 and 11018 of 1992. The writ petition, W.P. No. 11017 of 1992 has been filed for the writ of certiorari to call for and quash the show-cause-cum-demand notices issued by the fourth respondent in O.S. No. 1906 dt. 13.7.1992, calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why an amount of Rs. 2,47,05,641.22 as detailed in the annexure thereto f...
Tag this Judgment!