1
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-30-2000
Reported in : 2001(76)ECC151; 2001(129)ELT48(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue requiring our consideration is as to whether Modvat credit is available to a manufacturer in this case a manufacturer of Viscose Rayon in respect of the wires and cables which are used for the transmission of the electrical energy from the Sub Station within the premises of the manufacturer to the blowers which are used to take out Sulphur dioxide gas generated in the manufacturing process employed in the factory, unless that noxious gas is removed, it will not be possible for the workmen to continue to work within the premises of the factory, as the gas is generated in the process of manufacture, the workmen being engaged in operating, the machines employed in that process.2. The Modvat credit so claimed was not granted on the ground that those wires and cables are not used in the process of manufacture and, therefore, do not constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood in the year 1994. Though the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC257; (2000)1MLJ506
ORDER1. Tenant in RCOP No.143 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller/XIV Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction petition was filed by landlord under section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Controller) Act alleging that the scheduled building is required for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Tenant filed counter stating that the claim is not bona fide.3. On 22.2.1996, the case was posted for evidence on which date PW1 was examined and petitioner's witness was called absent and consequently he was declared ex parte and an order of eviction was also passed. Tenant moved an application to set aside the ex parte order with an application to condone delay of 267 days as per M.P.No.780 of 1996. In the affidavit in support of the application tenant said that they along with other members of family went to their native village where they met with an accident on 20.2.1996 and consequently they could not appear in court when the case was called. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC686
ORDER1. The second defendant in C.S.No.442 of 1997 has filed these applications under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and also read with Order 9, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint as barred by law and as not disclosing any cause of action, to dispose of the suit on the preliminary issue of law and to postpone the settlement of the issues of fact after the settlement of issues of law, to strike out/amend the issues framed in the suit on 3.12.98 and to direct the first respondent to make discovery on oath of all the documents in its power and possession relating to the claim for costs.2. The case in brief for disposal of all these applications is as follows:The first respondent has filed the suit against the applicant and the 2nd respondent for a declaration that the first respondent is not liable to pay the applicant any sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC41
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above three writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as these writ appeals have been filed against the same order of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1407 of 1998, dated 19-11-1999.2. For the purpose of discussion, we intend to refer to the cause title as given in the first case i.e. Writ Appeal No.2371 of 1999.3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No.1407 of 1998 against respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) and the appellant (the third respondent in writ petition), questioning the order, dated 27-2-1998, of the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India granted approval by virtue of powers conferred under Section 35(B)(i)(h) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the B.R. Act) to the fifth respondent herein viz., Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the fifth respondent bank) to appoint the appellant as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2000
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC646
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.120 of 1998 in O.S.No.75 of 1996dated 17.4.1998 on the file of District Mursif, Thiruvarur, the petitionerplaintiff has filed the above revision before this Court.2. The petitioner-plaintiff by name Srinivasan through power agent has filed the above suit for recovery of plaint B schedule property from the defendants and for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent;from in any manner interfering with the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaint A' Schedule property is the whole property owned by plaintiff of which plaint 'B' schedule is a part. The suit 'B' schedule property is a lane measuring about 125 sq.ft. in T.S.No.166/1 No.2. Vijayapuram Vattam. It is the plaintiffs case that this suit property was owned and enjoyed by the plaintiff and that the defendants while constructing their house in 1992 trespassed into plaint 'B' Schedule property despite objections and police complaints by the plaintiff and have erected concrete pill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-16-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC663
ORDER1. Second defendant in O.S.No.13752 of 1996, on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, is the appellant herein.2. Suit filed by plaintiff is for the following reliefs:-'....to pass a decree(a) declaring that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.7.1941;(b) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to amend the date of birth of plaintiff as 13.7.1941 in the records maintained by the 1st defendant in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and all also on the service register of the plaintiff maintained by the 2nd defendant respectively;(c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs; and(d) to pass such or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.'3. Material averments which necessitated the filing of the suit could be summarised thus:-It is the case of the plaintiff that he was born on 13.7.1941 at Arakkonam North Arcot Ambedkar District, and both his parents are now on more. He was a stu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC362
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.8.1994 made in E.A.No.999 of 1989 in E.P.No.2 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The petitioner Trust has filed the petition before the lower Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that it purchased an extent of 7.72 acres of land in various survey numbers at Thandalkalani Village and established therein Sri Nallalagu Polytechnic Institution; that subsequent to the execution of Kamaraj Education and Research Foundation Trust Deed, the administration of the Polytechnic came to be vested in the present Trust Board and the petitioners carry on the administration of the said Polytechnic as on today and that the properties including the sale deeds stand in the name of the Board of Management of Polytechnic.3. The further contentions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-29-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC423
ORDER1. The defendants in O.S.No.7876 of 1986 on the file on of the Fifth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein, who is plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land site forming part of the premises bearing Municipal Door No.199, Broadway, renamed as Prakasam Salai, George Town, Madras 600 108, excluding the south west corner portion of two rooms etc., bounded on the north by Door No. 199 east by Pophams Broadway and west by Meera Labbai Street comprised in R.S.No.2344 situate within the sub-registration district of Sowcarpet and the registration district of North Madras.2. The ownership of the property is not disputed. The revision petitioners claim that they are entitled to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations on this in the plaint are as under:Originally the first revision petitioner was the sole prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-2000
Reported in : I(2001)ACC55; 2000(2)CTC567
ORDER1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 and made in O.S.No.167 of 1983 on the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madurai. The second defendant is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is concisely narrated below:-The suit is one for a recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000 being the value of the damaged consignment with subsequent interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff entrusted 45 bags of cotton yarn on 8.5.1980 to the second defendant-appellant for safe carriage from Madurai to Bombay intended to be delivered at their sales depot at Bombay plaintiff who booked the consignment also insured the consignment with the second plaintiff under the marine insurance open policy under policy No.125000/3/1/00470/79 to compensate the first plaintiff against any loss or damage caused to the consignment during transit under Ex.A.1 and as such, the plaintiff is insured and the second plaintiff is the insurer. On 15.5.1980, the first plaintiff has received a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-27-2000
Reported in : AIR2000Mad465
S. Thangaraj, J.1. The respondent in A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Srivilliputhur has filed this Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the said Court.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 422 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif. Srivilliputhur for declaration and injunction. The trial Court after full trial, dismissed (sic) suit and the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur who allowed the appeal and hence, the Second Appeal.3. The following substantial questions of law are framed in the Second Appeal:--'(1) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C.?(2) in a suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction does not the initial burden of proof lie on the plaintiff?(3) in keeping with the Initial burden. Is not the plaintiff bound to prove his case by positive evidence on his side, ra...
Tag this Judgment!