Chennai Court November 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Joint Secretary (R.A.), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC126; 2008(151)LC126(Madras); 2008(221)ELT349(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The respondent claimed refund of rebate amount to the tune of Rs.6,84,590/=. The Revenue, by their order dated 30th Oct., 2003, rejected such prayer. The prayer of the respondent having been allowed by learned single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.2. The case of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') before the writ court was that the company cleared 2000 Kgs., of Cresol Chloride on 29th Dec., 1990, on payment of duty of Rs.5,35,500/= in GPI No.20 to one M/s.Colour Chem Ltd. The said M/s.Colour Chem Ltd., took credit in their RG 23-A Part II account as an input and resold the entire quantity on 11th Dec., 1992 to the company by paying in terms with Rule 57 F (1) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules. In this background, the company requested the Assistant Commissioner, Pondicherry Division for re-entry of Cresol Chloride for reprocessing the same. It filed necessary D3 intimation under Rule 173-H, whereinafter the Assistant Commission...
Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch Vs. Mona Packaging Products Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1557
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As all these writ petitions arise out of a common proceeding initiated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'), they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In two writ petitions, W.P. No. 27557/07 (petitioner M/s.Indian Bank) and W.P. No. 25382/07 (petitioner M/s.ICMC Packaging Ltd.), the petitioners have challenged order dated 1st March, 2007, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') in M.A. No. 214/06. Further prayer has been made to direct the concerned respondents 1 to 4 to hand over vacant possession of the property and the movables sold.Aforesaid two petitioners, M/s.Indian Bank and M/s.ICMC Packaging Ltd., are also petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26631 and 25383/07. In these cases, they have challenged order dated 23rd May, 2007, passed by DRAT, Chennai, in I.A. No. 450/07 in I.N. No. 307/07 with further prayer to direct respondents 1 to 4 to hand over vacant pos...
D. Saroja and ors. Vs. Saraswathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC150
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the learned trial Judge in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 40 of 2007 under Section 10 CPC to stay all the further proceedings in O.S. No. 5399 of 2003 until the disposal of the Application Nos. 150 and 151 of 2006 in T.O.S. No. 44 of 1994 pending before this Court.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the tenth respondent, who is the purchaser from respondents 1 to 9. It is seen that in I.A. No. 40 of 2007 respondents 1 to 9 have remained exparte and the trial Court has rejected the said application. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the the respondents 1 to 9 are the their relatives who sold the suit property based on the order of Probate passed by this Court on 19.11.1999 with regard to the alleged Will dated 30.04.1971 said t...
The Chairman, TuticorIn Port Trust Vs. TuticorIn Port Democratic Staff ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1788
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred by Tuticorin Port Trust against order dated 17th June, 2004, in W.P. No.10807/98, whereby and whereunder, learned single Judge, while held that the employees of a canteen are part and parcel of the particular establishment of the Port Trust, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to absorb and regularise the permanent canteen employees of respondent canteen with consequential monetary benefits.2. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the employees of the canteen in question have any right of absorption in the Tuticorin Port Trust.3. For determination of the issue, it is necessary to notice certain relevant facts, as mentioned herein:There was a private canteen in the Tuticorin Port, which was closed. Six officers of the Tuticorin Port Trust started another canteen (canteen in question) on 21st Nov., 1973 with their personal contribution. The then Chief Engineer and administrato...
B. Jayakumar Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Bsnl) Rep. by Its Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1293
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying to call for the records in RET/31-36/99 on the file of the second respondent and quash the order dated 17.03.2003 made therein and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in Group III category or any post equivalent thereto with all service benefits w.e.f. 05.11.1999.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner's father, while working as Senior Section Supervisor (S.S.S.) in Central Telegraph Office, Chennai 600 001, (now known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), a Government of India Enterprise) suddenly died intestate of brain stroke, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two other sons. He had two and a half years of service to his credit at the time of his death. Since he died while he was in service and that one of the representatives of the family members being eligible for a job in the Department, the...
Kuppan Alias Durai and I. Navaneetharani Vs. A.N. Annamalai and D. Moh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ337
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The Plaintiffs in the suit are the revision petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.191 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee praying for a decree for permanent injunction against the respondents who are the defendants in the suit from transferring and selling the suit land to any third parties while the agreement of sale stated to have been entered by the 1st defendant as a power agent of the 2nd defendant and the plaintiffs dated 29.11.1996 is subsisting.2. The first defendant who is stated to be the power agent of the second defendant has filed written statement on 10.08.2005.3. The plaintiffs filed application in I.A.No.596 of 1998 for interim injunction which was dismissed on 03.08.1998 by the trial court observing that the suit is not maintainable since the suit is filed based on an agreement for sale. Subsequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed for default on 26.11.2002. The plaintiffs have filed an applica...
Mrs. Sakunthala Vs. Anandarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ354
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Alandur in allowing the application filed by the 5th defendant in the suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the proof affidavit filed by the Power Agent of the plaintiff, Mrs. Sakunthala. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale stated to have been entered orally on 20.04.1994 and for a direction against the defendants to execute and register sale deed after receiving the additional sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and also for permanent injunction. The defendants have filed written statement denying categorically that no contract or oral agreement was entered on 20.04.1994 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. Further, the fixation of sale price at Rs. 15,000/- is also denied. However, the defendants have state...
V. Anil Kumar Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad56; (2007)6MLJ1777
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, has come up with the present writ petition pro bono, seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent-State Government, to issue necessary Notification under Section 27(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, conferring powers upon the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the State of Tamilnadu, to be the Judicial Magistrates of First Class, for the purpose of various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. We have heard Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Raja Khalifulla, learned Government Pleader for the respondent.3. In brief, the grievance of the petitioner is that whenever the orders of the District Forums or the State Commission, are sought to be enforced by invoking Section 27(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Police is refusing to execute the warrants of arrest issue...
Nataraj @ T. Natarajan Vs. P. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: II(2008)BC686
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records comprised in C.C. No. 1295 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode and to quash the same.2. Though the respondent had been served and his name shown in the cause title, he is neither appearing in person nor through Counsel and hence in his absence the petition is being taken up for final disposal.3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are setout hereunder:Since the cheque issued by the petitioner to the respondent herein was returned unpaid the respondent issued a statutory notice on 3.7.2006 which was served on the petitioner on 12.7.2006. The last date for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act') was 26.8.2006, but admittedly the complaint came to be filed only on 6.9.2006 i.e. after the delay of 10 days. But the complaint was not...
K.P.S. Elango Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)14VST323(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioner as well as the respondents are one and the same and relief sought for as well as the grounds are identical, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner has. participated in the auction conducted by the third respondent herein pursuant to tender notification dated 11.07.2086 for rearing finger lings and fishing right in S. Papparapatti Lake, Attayampatti Taluk, Salem District and offered the highest amount of Rs. 4,55,008/- and the auction was confirmed in his favour. In the tender notification dated 11.07.2086 issued by the third respondent, it is mentioned that the licence renewable every year on enhancement of 10% amount for a further period of five years, which clause was incorporated taking into consideration of the reality that the person, who is successful has to rear finger lings, which normally take one year, thereafter only, it gradually ready ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »