Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-31-1982
Reported in : 1984(2)ECC233; 1983(12)ELT728(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ235
..... classified homeopathic medicines and set out the standard to be complied with by the manufacturer. thus, the act starting with the proprietary and patent medicines, introduced control over the manufacture, sale and distribution of ayurvedic (including siddha) and ..... in accordance with the licence issued for that purpose. the act and the second schedule, to begin with, first classified patent or proprietary medicines and set out the standard to be complied with. then, control over the manufacture and sale of ayurvedic (including siddha) and unani drugs came to be introduced by the amendment act of 1964. on 9th december 1966 the second schedule .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Mad217
..... ground, that the claim application should have been dealt with under r.58 of o.21 as it stood prior to its amendment by act 104 of 1976, which came into force on 1-2-1977, and under the provisions then existing, the order made in ..... and that, therefore, this letters patent appeal also could not be maintained. this was on the ground, as already stated that an order in an application under rs. 58 of o 21 as it stood prior to its amendment by act 104 of 1976 did not provide ..... he dismissed the appeal. it is against this order the present appeal has been filed under cl. 15 of letters patent.3. even in this letters patent appeal. mr.dileep singh, learned counsel for the first respondent decree holder contended that the appeal before the learned single judge ..... for an appeal and that an order under that provision was final subject only to a right of suit which has to be filed within a period of one year from the date of the order. section 97(2)(q) of act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1982
Reported in : (1983)2MLJ534
..... that the appeal was not maintainable on the ground that the claim application should have been dealt with under rule 58 of order 21 as it stood prior to its amendment by act civ of 1976, which came into force on 1st february, 1977, and under the provisions then existing, the order made in respect of a petition under rule 58 is ..... appeal before the learned single judge was not maintainable and that, therefore this letters patent appeal also could not be maintained. this was on the ground, as already stated, that an order in an application under rule 58 of order 21, as it stood prior to its amendment by act civ of 1976, did not provide for an appeal and that an order ..... under that provision was final subject only to a right of suit which has to be filed within a period of one year from the date of the order. section 97(2)(a) of act civ of 1976, provided that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-1982
Reported in : (1982)31CTR(Mad)50; [1982]138ITR585(Mad)
..... of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes. section 12, prior to the amendment by finance act, 1972, with effect from 1973, reads as follows : '12. (1) any income of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or of a charitable or religious institution ..... the hands of one trader be, and in the hands of another not be, an investment, though a less likely form of investment for any trader to make than a patent cannot readily be imagined.' 21. lord normand explained the meaning of the word 'investment' thus in the same case above referred to, viz., irc v. tootal broadhurst lee co ..... , the house of lords had to consider the question whether the royalties received by a company in three groups of patents constituted 'investments' within the meaning of para. 6 of pt. i of the seventh schedule to the finance (no. 2) act, 1939. lord simonds, in his speech, observed as follows at p. 372 : 'it appears to me that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-19-1982
Reported in : (1982)2MLJ327
..... only by the advocate concerned. in my view, it is superluous to decide, this issue since the proceedings in o.s. no. 3850 of 1974 are much earlier to the amending act civ of 1976. if that be so, it is only the satisfaction of the court regarding the com promise agreement that counts and there is no question of putting the ..... valid.6. mr. r.s. venkatachari, learned counsel for the respondent i defendant, reading order 23, rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, after its amendment by section 74(5)(iii)(a) by act civ of 1976, submits that the compromise to be valid must be in writing and signed by the parties, to the suit. it is further submitted by ..... whether or not the decree is a nullity, where on the face of the decree it is apparent that the court passing the decree had no jurisdiction or there are patent reasons for doubting the inherent jurisdiction of the court.9. in vasudev dhanjibhai modi v. rajabhai abdul rehman : [1971]1scr66 , the supreme court had occasion to deal with the powers .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-30-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Mad225; (1983)1MLJ220
..... got by a decreeholder in execution without the executing court being aware of the inhibitions found in the provisions of the madras non-residential buildings rent control order, 1942, as amended on 11-7-1944, can definitely be restored by the executing court under s. 151 of the code.5. in thangasami chettiar v. bapoo sahib : air1951mad804 , horwill and ..... that section only prescribes the method of enforcing the right. the case dealt with by the learned judges arose under madras act 15 of 1946, the relevant provisions of which are not as patently worded as s 18 of the act. there the landlord got an order of eviction and actually got possession in execution and on appeal the order of ..... of 1980 must be deemed to have been stayed. rule 16 of rules delineates the procedure for the disposal of appeal by the appellate authority under s. 23 of the act. for the purpose of this revision we are only concerned with the implications of the third proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 16 of the rules. sub-rule .....
Tag this Judgment!