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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC123; 2008(151)LC123(Madras); 2008(227)ELT361(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to direct the first respondent Tribunal to state the case on the following question of law set out in the petition for its opinion:Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in ordering for extension of Modvat benefit to the assessee who have not followed a procedure and have not filed any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?2. The assessee engaged in the manufacture of Drip Irrigation System claimed exemption in respect of the HDPE/LDPE pipes cleared during the period 1.10.1995 to 4.3.1996, used in manufacture of Drip Irrigation System. The contention of Revenue is that in the course of inspection of the Departmental officials at the unit of the assessee on 5.3.1996, it was found that the HDPE and LDPE pipes were manufactured and cleared by the assessee in the guise of parts of drip irrigation system. The pipes were classifiable under Chapter ...
K.S. Mohamed Ibrahim, Vs. Mohamed Habibullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ589
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.10.1994 made in O.S. No. 347 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The appellants herein were defendants 1, 2 and 7 in the suit before the trial court.2. The suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, seeking a decree against the appellants and others, directing them to pay specific amounts with interest and costs, accordingly, the decree was passed by the trial court against the first appellant / D1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,585/- along with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The second appellant / D2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,585/- along with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The third appellant / D7 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 88,293/- with 15% interest for the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost. Futher, the appellants herein were directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- which was given by the respondent for one Mum...
Pon Venkatesh K. and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ675Mad
S. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 484/2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai. The respondent is the complainant in the said case and he has laid the private complaint against the petitioners for an alleged offence, said to have committed by the petitioners punishable under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the said proceedings.According to the allegations in the complaint, the second petitioner, factory is covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act; under Section 40 of the Act, the petitioners being the principal employer of the second petitioner, establishment is liable to pay both employer's contribution and employees' contribution. But the same was not done in time. Now a sum of Rs. 87, 838 (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight only) is due from the petitioners. Their failure to pay the contributi...
Sriram Educational Trust Represented by Its Chairman Vs. the President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC449; (2008)3MLJ351
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appellant/petitioners in these batch of writ appeal/writ petitions are educational institutions. They challenge the correctness of the demand for property tax under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on the ground that buildings used for educational purpose are exempt from liability under Rule 15(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) Rules, 1999.2. It is seen that on the issue of exemption, there are two decisions of this Court taking two different views. In the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 1068 (Kamaraj College of Engineering And Technology, Managing Board, rep. by its Secretary, Virudhunagar v. President, K. Vellakulam Panchayat, Madurai District), Justice P.Jyothimani considered the question of exemption on the assessment of house tax on the educational institutions under Rule 15(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) Rules, 1999. The learned Judge held th...
The District Collector, Vs. Jayaseelan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1012
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The order passed in E.P. No. 69 of 1997 in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi is under challenge in this revision.2. The said Execution petition was filed under Order 21 Rule 22 and under Order 21 and Rule 35 CPC. The suit in O.S. No. 757 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiff for injunction restraining the defendants viz.,The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai, The Tahsildar,Taluk Office, Vandavasi and The Special Tahsildar Natham Survey, Taluk Office, Vandavasi from issuing the patta for the plaint schedule property in favour of one Suseela Ammal, who is not a party to the suit and for mandatory injunction against the above defendants to grant patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. An exparte decree was passed in the suit on 3.1.1997.3. It is represented on behalf of the revision petitioners that unfortunately a petition filed to set aside the expa...
Nakkheerangopal Vs. Kovai Thangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1883; 2008(2)CTC146
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore rejecting the plea of the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. No. 200 of 2004 to examine five co-accused as witnesses on his side. Of course, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore was pleased to permit the petitioner to examine the sole independent witness cited in the list of witnesses placed before the court.2. The petitioner is the first accused in a case launched against him for offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. After questioning the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore offered an opportunity to the accused to lead evidence on their side. At that stage, the first accused, who is the petitioner herein, filed a list of witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to reject the plea of the accused...
Microsoft Corporation India P. Ltd. Vs. Pace Automation Limited Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ949
M. Venugopal, J.1. The O.S.A. No. 190 of 2007 is preferred by the appellant/ 3rd party as against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in impleading application No. 2132 of 2007 in C.S. No. 804 of 2002 dated 12.06.2007.2. The appellant/applicant/3rd party has filed an Application No. 495 of 2007 in C.S. No. 804 of 2002 praying for a relief in striking out the name of the applicant, Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., as representing the defendant Microsoft Corporation USA by deleting the words following Microsoft Corporation USA, namely, 'represented by Microsoft Corporation India P Ltd., No. 108, Dr. R.K. Road, Chennai 600 004' in the cause title and in the body of the plaint in the suit.3. The first respondent/applicant/plaintiff has filed an Application No. 2132 of 2007 seeking permission to implead the appellant as second defendant in the suit etc.4. The learned Single Judge has passed a common order in Application Nos.495 and 2132 of 2007 on 12.06.2007 inter-alia obser...
Marimuthu Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2011
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Ist Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri made in S.C. No. 229 of 2004 dated 16.11.2005 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 447 and 302 I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the son of P.W.2 and Sambu, the deceased in the case. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. Both the families of the accused and deceased belong to Aralkundi village.(b) One day prior to the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.1.2002, the accused indulged in a quarrel with the deceased Sambu as the deceased Sambu conveyed the conversation of the accused, with her, criticizing his son-in-law Anbazhangan regarding not taking ...
Mrs. Sujatha Jayakumar, Proprietrix sujatha Agencies Vs. Karnataka Soa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC533; 2008(2)CTC576; (2008)3MLJ177
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned,XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court dated 23.8.2006 made in I.A. No. 4780 of 2006 in O.S. No. 769 of 2003.2. The defendant in the above referred suit is the petitioner and the plaintiff thereon is the respondent herein. The respondent herein laid the suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of the amount said to be due by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner had taken out an application, in I.A. No. 4780 of 2006 to dismiss the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below and the present revision is directed against the said order.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for dismissing the suit the petitioner had averred that the suit has been laid through power of attorney agent, who has verified the plaint and signed the vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had also filed an application for leave of the Court to...
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division and ors. Vs. P. Pan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ444
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Deenadayalan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. T. Madasamy, learned Counsel for the first respondent and have perused the records.2. The petitioner is the Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division. The first respondent in the writ petition filed O.A. No. 975 of 2001 seeking to set aside the order of the first petitioner dated 30.11.1999 in removing him from service, which was confirmed by the fourth petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2000. 3. The first respondent was employed as a substitute for the permanent Postmaster, by name, Mr. P. Shankar, from 18.12.1995 to 29.8.1996 in the Anampatti Branch Post Office, Thiagesar Alai Sub-Post Office, Manaparai Taluk. He became a permanent Postmaster of the said branch on 30.8.1996. One A. Mani, had five Recurring Deposit Accounts in the said Post Office and when he wanted to close his RD Accounts ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »