Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1994
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-18-1994
Reported in : AIR1994Mad213
ORDERRatnam, J.1. Let your telephonic conversation be brief, short and to the point, comprehending much in few words and limited to a duration of five-minutes; otherwise, it is going to cost the subscriber connected to an eleetronic exchange dearly, is the substance of the letters bearing. No. 3-15/92-K & Co., dated 10-6-1992 and No. II-32/91-PHM/P+l dated 15-9-1992, issued in pursuance of a notification beating G. SR. 560(E) dated 26-5-1992, sought to be quashed by the issue of a writ of cerliorari, in this public interest writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, issued a notification dated 26-5-1992, amending the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and pursuant to the amendment, by the communications impugned in the writ petition, multi-metering of lcoal calls in all electronic exchanges in India in system having a capaci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-18-1994
Reported in : 1994(46)ECC65; 1994(71)ELT655(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Customs and two others and M/s. Thungabhadra Fibres Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as' the company'), against the order in WP No. 10035 of 1983, in relation to that part of the order adverse to the appellants in these appeals. In W.P. No. 10035 of 1983, filed by the company, it prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants in W.A. No. 1470 of 1991, to allow the company to clear the goods covered by the Bills of Entry for warehousing Nos. 1506 and 1507 dated 15-6-1981, on payment of forty per cent as the duty leviable without enhancement of twenty per cent as provided in the Finance Act of 1983 (earlier Finance Bill of 1983) and without any claim for interest. 2. Shortly stated, the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition by the company, as could be gathered from the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, are as under. The company; pursuant to import ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1994
Reported in : (1995)124CTR(Mad)298; [1995]217ITR213(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. The assessee, an individual and resident, during the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, received dividend income from certain companies incorporated in the united Kingdom. In the original assessments, the actual amounts received by the assessee from the companies converted at the proper exchange rate into rupees were included. Later, the Income-tax Officer realised that what was included in the assessment was the net dividend income received by the assessee after deduction of income-tax and, as, according to hi, the gross dividend was includible under section 5(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), especially in view of the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1965, to the united Kingdom Income-tax Act, 1952, under which U. K. companies deducted tax on dividends and paid the amounts deducted to the Inland Revenue as an amount, apart from its own tax liability. Reassessments were made including the gross dividend income of Rs. 56...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-1994
Reported in : 1994(71)ELT884(Mad)
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. In these batch of Writ Petitions, the validity of Notification No. 140 of 1981 dated 2-7-1981 issued under Rule-8 sub-rule (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is in question.2. By the said notification, the petitioners who are manufacturers of matches without aid of power have been denied the concessional rates of excise duty which they were entitled to in terms of an earlier Notification No. 42 of 1981. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions have therefore questioned the amendment issued under the impugned notification.3. In order to appreciate the questions involved and raised in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts also to trace briefly the history of the excise duty levied on matches. Excise duty was levied on matches for the first time in 1934. Upto 1948-49, match factories were classified for the purpose of excise into two types viz., industries producing not more than 100 gross boxes per day and rest with a higher outpu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-03-1994
Reported in : [1994]80CompCas1(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in E.O.C.C. No. 20 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 310 read with section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. (first accused) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The second accused is the managing director of the said company. Accused Nos. 3 to 9 are non-wholetime directors of the company. The officer authorised by the Central Government inspected the affairs of the company from September 5, 1990, to September 18, 1990. During the course of inspection, it was found that clause 92 of the articles of association of the company empowere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-17-1994
Reported in : [1996]86CompCas747(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ petitions involved for determination certain common and identical issues currently in controversy in the Medical circles and consumer litigation relating to the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act 68 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to facilities made available by Hospitals providing medical care and members of medical profession treating a patient, in the realm of diagnosis and treatment. 2. A brief reference to the stage and circumstances of the case which led to the filing of the above writ petitions individually would be necessary to appreciate the nature of the grievance sought to be vindicated by the parties on either side. W.P. No. 1953 of 1992 as the amended prayer stands, has been filed by two Medical Practitioners (husband and wife) for the writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from exercising their jurisdiction against the Medical Practitioners on the basis of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1994
Reported in : (1995)125CTR(Mad)93; [1995]217ITR284(Mad)
ORDERPratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 930 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the complaint under sections 193, 196, 420 and 511 of Indian Penal Code, read with sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The accused is assessed to income-tax. He is doing business as a jeweller in Coimbatore. There was a search operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the business premises of the accused on June 9, 1980, and substantial unaccounted stock representing corals and pearls were seized and the same was estimated at Rs. 2,50,000. The accused filed a return of the income for the assessment year 1981-82 on October 27, 1982, admitting a total income of Rs. 1,89,720, which included only Rs. 1,00,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-09-1994
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ481
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. Not a day passes with a conference on pollution control and environmental management at some part of the world or atleast an article in the Newspaper and Weekly Magazines about the importance of the subject or the lack of awareness on the part of the citizens, the Government and the Governmental Authorities. The subject has assumed the Worldwide importance because it threatens the very life and existence of the human race. That is precisely the reason why several enactments have been passed by the Central and State Governments on the control of water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution as well as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, etc.2. The petitioner in this case is a trust set up for the purpose of representing consumers and fighting their cause in protecting public health, public safety and the performance of public duties in this regard. The deponent of the affidavit is a trustee of the said trust and is a well-known member of the Bar. It is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1994
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas669(Mad)
Swamidurai, J. 1. These appeals are filed against the common order dated October 20, 1993, passed by the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench at Madras, in C.P. Nos. 1 to 11/111/SRB of 1993. The first set of appeals, namely, C.M.A. Nos. 1245 to 1251 of 1993, have been filed by Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited being partly aggrieved by the decision of the Company Law Board. The appeals filed by the Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited are against (a) direction of the Company Law Board to the company to allot the debentures/shares to the first respondent in respect of shares covered in list A and C of annexure I of the order even though the Company Law Board has ordered rectification in respect of the said shares by removing the name of the first respondent in respect of those shares, and (b) the direction of the Company Law Board to the company to continue to have the name of the first respondent in its register of members and not in ordering rectification in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!