Chennai Court January 2008 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.
P.K. Duraisami Vs. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Admn., Department and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ829
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.11.1996 made in O.S. No. 998 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Department, the statutory suit under Section 70(1) of H.R. & C.E. Act, XXII of 1959 was filed by the appellant herein.3. According to the appellant / plaintiff, he is holding office as Hereditary Trustee in Sri Vinayagar Temple, situated at Eachanari Village, Coimbatore, within the meaning of Section 6(11) and 63(b) of H.R. & C.E. Act. It is not in dispute that the temple is located in S. No. 636/2 and 633 of Kurichi village with an extent of 1-18 acres on the western side of Coimbatore - Pollachi Main Road. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the vinayagar idol in question had been brought from Madurai to Perur for installation, nearly 150 y...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Virudhunagar Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(128)ECC91; 2008(154)LC91(Madras); 2008(230)ELT411(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin against the Final Order No. 956 of 2007 dated 02.08.2007 passed by the CESTAT, Chennai by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal's decision that the amount erroneously refunded could not be recovered by filing an appeal under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 unless a demand notice was issued under Section 28(1) be correct in law, when the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai : 2002ECR278(SC) had held to the effect that an order issued under Section 35E of the Act would be equally sustainable in law for recovering dues of excise duty?2. Whether unjust enrichment by an individual company is permissible in law only for the reason that a demand notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was not issued for recovery of erroneous refund when the Department followed the appellate remedy available under Se...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aristo Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(129)ECC127; 2008(155)LC127(Madras)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Commissioner of Customs has filed this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 by formulating the following two substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that time limit is not applicable to the refund of bank guarantee for Rs. 12,58,190/- being the difference in duty between actual rate of duty and concessional rate of duty by enforcing the bank guarantee realised by the appellant on 03.09.2001 and refund claim was filed only on 01.06.2005, i.e., beyond the period of six months as stipulated in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the legal issue that whether the respondent is entitled for refund when the respondent has not discharged the export obligation within the stipulated time?2. The appeal is filed on the ground that the respondent had imported certain capital goods under EPCG scheme and cleared the same without payment of duty. The relevant licence ...
Ganapathy thevar Vs. Shanmuga thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj220
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed in A.S. No. 8 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1999 passed in O.S. No. 8 of 1989 by the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.3. Broadly, but briefly, succinctly but narratively, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint and the relevant records could be portrayed thus:The defendant in consideration of having received a sum of Rs. 3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), on 01.10.1985 executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1, undertaking to repay the same with 12% interest perannum. However, the defendant committed default which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.4. The quintessence of the case of the defendant is that even though hesigned the suit pro...
Dr. P. Elangovan Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj670; (2008)4MLJ670
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the charge memorandum in R. No. 119797/PHC3/A2/2005-1, dated 23.1.2006 issued to him by the third respondent herein. The petitioner is a Senior Civil Surgeon. In the impugned charge memo, it has been alleged that while the petitioner was working in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service, he engaged himself in a business with one Thiru. Chellapandian, who is a Transport Operator in Vilangudi area, Perambalur District and thereby violated Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, which prohibits such engagement in any trade or business either directly or indirectly, except with the previous sanction of the Government. Under Annexure III, it is shown as evidence of Charge, a communication, dated 13.9.2005 of one Thiru. Elavazhagan, M.L.A. of Ariyalur Constituency, Perambalur District along with a copy of O.A. No. 159 of 2003 (wrongly mentioned as O.A. instead of O.S. No. 159 of 2003). Challenging the abov...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Contr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC203; 2008(151)LC203(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These reference case petitions are filed under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee, the Madras Aluminium Company Ltd., is manufacturer of Aluminium and articles thereof falling under Chapter Heading No. 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It availed the credit of duty on 40 items to the tune of Rs. 77,21,450.41 declaring the same as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the premise that the inputs were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Show cause notices were issued proposing denial of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty inasmuch as the said goods were not considered as inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order in original in Sl. No. 112/96 dated 16.05.1996, Sl. No. 19/97 dated 01.04.1997, Sl. No. 95/97 dated 13.11.1997 and Sl. No. 1/1998 dated 08.01.1998 disallowed the credit of Rs. 75,80,575.68 and allowed the rema...
Radhabai Vs. Arunagiri,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ880
M. Venugopal, J.1. L.P.A. Nos. 86 of 2001 and 87 of 2001 have been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 720 of 1987 and Tr.A.S. No. 438 of 1989 dated 21.03.2000 holding that the Sale Deed dated 24.04.1968 executed by Sambournathammal in favour of Visalakshiammal cannot be held as null and void and the amount awarded by the trial Court payable by the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 is not proper and setting aside the same.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 445 of 1982 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry praying for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24.4.1968 executed by Sampournathammal is null and void. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry after considering the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as against the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 with proportionate costs and dismissed the suit against the 3rd and 4th ...
Ketan A. Shah Vs. Devendrakumar Hiralal Veecumesee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ617
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the appeals have been preferred by appellants against order dated 22nd Feb., 2000, passed by learned Judge in Application No. 6917/93 in C.S. No. 577/82. They were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The plaintiff, Ketan A. Shah, appellant in O.S.A. No. 99/00 preferred the suit for declaration that the partnership firm 'Sapphire' of which he is partner shall be deemed to have been dissolved with effect from 27th Feb., 1982 and also for rendition of accounts of the firm upto dissolution and also for consequential relief of allotment of plaintiff's share and profit. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 3rd July, 1989, whereinafter application No. 6917/93 was filed by plaintiff to pass a final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree.3. The plaintiff, who was the applicant was in fact appointed as Receiver by order made by Bench on 23rd Aug., 1989 and he took charge of the properties of the firm. Receiver filed applic...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Komalam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ736
R. Banumathi, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal/Sub Court, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P. No. 1219/1996, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/-, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts as set out in the claim petition are as follows : Deceased Kannan Kumar was employed in Selzar Electronics as Executive Secretary and he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. On 11.05.1995, deceased Kannan Kumar was travelling as occupant in Tata Estate Car bearing registration No. KL 9B 707 belonging to the fourth respondent Salzer Electronics Ltd. Car was driven by one Babu Gopalakrishnan. At about 11.30 p.m. while the said car was proceeding near Mettupalayam Road near Madras Oil Company, the car was turned upside and rolled all of a sudden. Due to the accident, deceased Kannan Kumar sustained fatal injuries and he became unconscious and was immediately taken to K.R.H. Hospital, from where he was shifted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. The deceased Kannan Kumar su...
A.C. Sekar Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad224; 2008(1)CTC838; (2008)2MLJ733
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the first respondent and perused the records.2. The petitioner is a salesman in the second respondent Bank and has filed the present writ petition against the direction given by the Deputy Registrar (first respondent) to the second respondent to furnish the information sought for by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent's son was a member of the Marxist Party and was sending petitions to the higher officials as the petitioner had denied mamool to be given to him frequently. The said person, by name, Thirumoorthy, had sought for certain information under the Right to Information Act [for short, 'RTI Act']. On the basis of the request made by him, the said person was directed to pay Rs. 25,405/- towards the cost of furnishing the said information in terms of the Right to Information (Reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »