Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

R. Pasumpon Alagarsamy Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum, Srivilliputhur, in O.P.No.9/2004 dt.30.01.2006, since the complainant failed in his attempt, to get favourable order. 2. The complainant/ appellant, is the owner of the vehicle, bearing Regn. No.TN 07 K 3020, and the same was insured with the opposite party under package policy No.65/2004, from 15.4.2003 to 14.4.2004. The vehicle when proceeding on the Aruppukkottai Main Road on 22.10.2003, it had lost its control, due to unavoidable circumstances, dashed against the tree, thereby causing severe damage to the vehicle, which was informed to the opposite party, who appointed the surveyor, for assessing the damage and to submit a report. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent to authorised service station, and the estimate of repair was prepared, quantifying at Rs.3,12,736/-. After repair, the complainant/ policy holder, lodged a claim, which was repudiated, on false grounds or untenable gr...

Dr. M. Ponnuswamy and M. Palaniswamy Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Elec ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ803

ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for mandamus forbearing the respondents from erecting any towers taking high tension wire or line over their property in Survey No. 480/1 situated at Sangothipalayam, Kaniyur Post, Karumatham Patti, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District.2. The short matrix of the matter is set out hereunder:2.1. The petitioners are the owners of the land in Survey No. 480/1, situated at Sangothipalayam measuring about an extent of 1 = acres. A substation belonging to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (T.N.E.B) is located at Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. For the past twenty years, electricity is being supplied to Aviniash Taluk and Annur Taluk from this substation. To facilitate the supply of electricity, several towers were erected between the Arasur substation to the concerned taluks. Sangothipalayam is one among the several villages in which towers were erected for the supply of electricity. Construction ...

Banumathy Sampathkumar and anr. Vs. Tvs Finance and Services Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas142(Mad)

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.1. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who are facing criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in C.C. No. 10818 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai, seek to quash the proceedings.2. The brief facts are as follows:The first accused-company had entered into a valid agreement dated March 15, 1998, with M/s. Haritha Finance Ltd., for hiring the machinery and the petitioners stood guarantee for the first accused-company and executed a letter of guarantee dated March 15, 1998. The amount financed was for a total value of Rs. 20,61,052. Under a scheme of amalgamation, the company came to be amalgamated with M/s. Harita Finance Ltd., and came to be known as M/s. Harita Srinivasa Finance P. Ltd., and the same was approved by this Court vide its order dated July 31, 1998, made in C.P. No. 142 of 1998. Later the name of M/s. Harita Srinivasa Finance P. Ltd., was changed to M/s. Harita Finance...

M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Considering the petty amount involved in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the case....

M/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coi ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri A.R. Sreenivasan, DGM of the appellant-company states that, in this case, the appellants removed the impugned machinery on 16.09.2000 for the purpose of exhibition. At that stage, the duty benefit under Notification No.215/84-CE dated 09.11.1984 could not be taken as the necessary certificate was not available with the appellants at that time, which was received late. However, he pleads that all conditions of the notifications are satisfied in the appellant s case except that duty was paid in stead of giving a bond. Subsequently, the impugned machinery was brought back to the factory on 22.12.2000 and later on, the same has been cleared to a 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate without payment of duty on 21.01.2001. The refund claim for the original amount of duty paid has been filed on 03.02.2001 which has been rejected by both the authorities below leading to this appeal. 2. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran who supports the...

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another V ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K.Das As the common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The issue involved is in a narrow compass and, therefore, after granting stay, the appeal No.E/1229/04 is taken up for hearing. 3. In Appeal No.E/1229/04, the appellant M/s.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is a statutory body, a Public Sector Undertaking of State of Tamil Nadu. In Appeal No.E/639/02, the appellant M/s.Anglo French Textiles is a unit of Pondicherry Textile Corporation, which is fully owned by the Govt. of Pondicherry. The dispute is between the Central Government and the State Government entities. The ld. Jt.CDR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs City and Indus. Dev.Corpn., Maharashtra [2009 (233) ELT 30 (SC)] constituted the Committee to sort out the difference between the Central Government and State Government and, therefore, these appellants are required to obtain the clearance from the Committee. Ms.Meenakshi, ld. ...

M/S. Everest Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the department before him on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in as much as they had neither predeposited the amount of duty nor they had filed any stay application before the said authority. 2. Shri M. Saravanan, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants states that the duty amount involved in this case has since been recovered by the department by making adjustment from the refund amount due to the appellants vide order No. 28.12.99, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Pollachi Division. As such, since the amount involved stood recovered, the lower appellate authority should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. 3. Heard Shri C.Rangaraju, Ld. SDR. 4. In view of the fact that the appellants did not have to make any predeposit after adjustmen...

Numeric Power Systems Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K.Das As the common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPSS) classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee cleared the UPSS to various research institutes and availed full exemption under Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 1.3.97. In appeal No.E/570/03, original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.1,69,253/- denying the benefit of exemption notification and imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order to the extent of benefit of cum duty price was allowed. Hence the assessee has filed this appeal. In Appeal No.E/569/03, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.53,216/- denying the benefit of the exemption notification and imposed penalty of Rs.5000/-. Commissioner (Appeals) modified...

K. Kumar Vs. Tmt. Poomani,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1006

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel in support of this appeal. Mr. K.M.Venugopal, learned Counsel appears for the contesting respondent No. 1/caveator. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3.2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the second respondent - State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which in turn had set aside the order passed by the third respondent - Regional Transport Authority.3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this-wise:The appellant and the respondent No. 1 are brother and sister respectively. The respondent No. 1, who is presently aged about 40 years, is his eldest sister and she got married long back. The father of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was running a transport business and he owned two buses. He executed a Will on 13th December 2006 saying that this business, after his death...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.Penshibao Wang (Pvt) Ltd., Ba ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The department is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. The original authority held the importers to be related to the supplier as per Rule 2(2)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The lower appellate authority has reversed this finding after taking into account the facts of the case and the provisions of the said Rule 2(2)(iv). Neither the grounds of appeal nor the arguments made by the learned SDR show us any evidence to alter the finding of the lower appellate authority. As such the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent also stands disposed off....