Chennai Court June 2009 Judgments

S. Pandara Vadivu Vs. the Director of Elementary Education,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1000

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the second respondent declining grant of approval of petitioner's appointment as Headmistress in the third respondent school with consequential direction to approve the appointment of petitioner as Headmistress.2. The case of the petitioner is that after passing graduation, she registered her name in the Employment Exchange in the year 1996 initially at Cuddalore, which was subsequently transferred to Madurai District Employment Exchange. A vacancy arose in the third respondent - private aided School in the cadre of Headmistress due to the retirement of the then Headmaster. The third respondent applied for permission to fill up the post and no order having been passed, the third respondent invited applications through news paper - Dinakaran, Tirunelveli edition, dated 18.6.1999. On receipt of applications, a selection committee was constituted by the third respondent and in...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home (Sc) Dep ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1221

ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The above two writ petitions are at the instance of the State, challenging the common order dated 15-4-2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT'), allowing the applications, O.A. Nos. 854 and 869 of 2008, filed by the first respondent herein.2. The factual matrix involved in the present writ petitions is common and further common arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, the writ petitions were, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common order.3. The first respondent joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police (direct recruit) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service in the year 1983. In the year 1994, he was promoted and appointed in the service of the Indian Police Service and while he was serving as Superintendent of Police, Karur District, he was placed under suspension vide order in G.O. Ms. No. 239 dated 20-3-2002 passed by the first petitioner. The suspension was on the ground that an enquir...

Association of Engineers Metro Water Rep. by Its President and M. Baka ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ26

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of second respondent pertaining to B.P. No. 36/2004, Personnel and Administration (R&A;) Department, dated 05.01.2005, quash the same and consequently direct second and third respondents to implement explanation 4 of Regulation 5 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,1978, by counting previous service in the higher grade.2. The case of the petitioners is as under:2.1. The first petitioner is registered under Societies Registration Act. The engineers working in the second respondent Board are members of the first petitioner association. Therefore, the association is espousing the cause of the engineers working in the second respondent Board. The second petitioner joined the services of the second respondent as Assistant Engineer on 29.10.1979 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Execu...

Devala Tea Factory Vs. the Central Board of Excise and Customs and Off ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(242)ELT219(Mad)

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the notice dated 10.12.2004, bearing Serial No. 8 of 2004, and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is as under:2.1. It is a manufacturer of black tea, falling under Central Excise Tariff Act, holding Registration Certificate No. 2/97. Vide Notification No. 41/99-Central Excise, dated 26.11.1999, it is exempted from payment of excise duty. Intending to avail the benefit of the notification, it has filed an undertaking with the second respondent to the effect that not less than 2/3rd of the green leaves used in manufacture of black tea in the factory are purchased from growers having holding not exceeding 10 Hectares under tea cultivation.2.2. When the petitioner received show cause notice from the Superintendent, Gudalur Range, demanding duty, the petitioner was informed that the undertaking referred to in the n...

S. Ganesan Vs. Bharathirajan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ489

M.M. Sundresh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is filed in O.S. No. 80 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows.2. The suit property originally belonged to one Sonaimuthuservai. In pursuant to the partition deed dated 14.05.1970 which is marked as Ex.A2, the suit property was allotted to one of his son by name Balu. The said Balu has executed a registered mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in Ex.A3 dated 27.07.1971. As per the said mortgage deed the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the income arising out of the suit property in lieu of the interest to the paid by the said Balu. Thereafter a sale deed has been executed by the said Balu in favour of the plaintiff in Ex.A.1 dated 11.06.1975. According to the plaintiff Ex.A4 to E.A36 would show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a owner. Since the wife and minor children of Balu have sold th...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Hema Engineering Industrie ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The original authority dropped the proposals to disallow and recover credit of duty paid on plastic crates availed during January to October 05. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner sustained the order of the original authority observing that the crates participated in the process of production of automobile components by the respondents by making processed materials available at various points within the factory. Therefore, these items were eligible for credit. In this appeal filed by Revenue, denial of the impugned credit is canvassed relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- 1) Commissioner Vs PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 2005 (192) ELT 541 (Tri.) 2) Commissioner Vs Suganeswara Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 2006 (199) ELT 698 (Tri.) 2. have heard the ld. JCDR for the Revenue and ld. counsel for the respondents. Ld. counsel relied on a decision of a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs CCE Vado...

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

This matter arises for the second time before the Tribunal. On hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, the appeal is taken up. 2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit on capital goods during 2002-03 and 2003-04 in terms of the relevant Rules. The original authority had allowed credit only to the extent of Rs.2,82,950/- and denied the balance on the ground that the benefit of depreciation had also been availed under the Income Tax Act insofar as the balance duty of Rs.2,33,074/- was concerned. The decision of the original authority had been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the assessee had made a claim for the first time before the Tribunal challenging the order of the first appellate authority that the lower authorities did not have an occasion to examine the relevant income tax assessment orders...

Anjaneya Textiles Unit-ii Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbato ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Following a visit to the appellants unit on 9.8.08 and scrutiny of the records maintained by them, officers attached to the Central Excise Division, Pollachi observed that the appellants had maintained parallel invoices showing clearances of dutiable cotton yarn without accounting the same in their statutory records. A total of 13 such invoices were recovered. These invoices showed clearances during April to August 05. Evidence was gathered in the form of statements from the Manager in charge of the factory and Proprietor of the assessee unit. In a statement dt. 9.8.01, Shri R.Gurusamy, Manager admitted having resorted to clearance of dutiable goods, namely cotton yarn on cone, without paying duty by manipulating the production and clearance records. They had adopted this modus operandi since they became ineligible to the SSI exemption from 1.4.01. He admitted evasion of Central Excise duty involved in the clearances reflected in the 13 parallel invoices recovered. Shri R.Nareshkumar, ...

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)26VST362(Mad)

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This Revision by the State arises on the following substantial question of law, viz.,Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in having deleted the penalty levied under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 based upon the decision in 125 STC 505 while for the assessment year 1980-81 penalty is leviable under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Act for filing of incorrect and incomplete returns and therefore the said decision cannot be applied to this case?2. The short facts which are required to be stated are that the respondent is a cement manufacturing company. The assessment relates to the year 1980-81. This revision is confined to that part of the order of the Tribunal in having setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The sale value of the cement bags manufactured by the respondent was determined by the cem...

K. Venugopal Vs. the Joint Director of School Education, (Vocational E ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1009

ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka. No. 20424/V1/E1/09 dated 22.04.2009 and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.3. Mr. P. Rajendiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order of suspension passed contrary to the provision under Rule 17(e)(1)(i)(ii) of the T.N.C.S. (D&A;) Rules to the effect that the said order is passed not in the public interest as in the impugned order it is not stated that the suspension order is passed against the petitioner in the public interest. It is contended that before issuing the order of suspension that in the public interest mus...