Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Valli Textiles Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein availed credit beyond a period of six months from the date of issue of the duty paying documents namely invoices. The objection of the Revenue is to the taking of such credit as it is beyond the period specified in Rule 57G as amended. 2. On hearing both sides, we note that the issue stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the apex court in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Indore [2002 (142) ELT 5 (SC)] upholding the Tribunal’s order holding that credit cannot be availed beyond the period of six months from the date of issue of the duty paying documents. The apex court has also upheld the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2000 (120) ELT 214(Tri.-LB)] to the same effect. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order extending credit, and allow the appeal of the Revenue....

Goyal Dresses and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and Anot ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, M/s.Goyal Dresses filed declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in 1998. The Commissioner rejected the claim of the company for availment of benefit under the said scheme and proceeded to confirm a demand of Rs.30,74,830/-. Appeal No.C/42/99 along with stay application No.15/99 was filed by the company; company also filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court; the learned Single Judge passed the order on 12.3.2003 holding that the petitioner was entitled to invoke the benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and directing refund of the amount of Rs.91,62,370/- paid to customs authorities by the petitioner. Against the order in the writ petition, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court which vide order dt. 13.10.2008 upheld the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge’s order directing refund was implemented by the department. However, since the ord...

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ526Mad

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The order of the first respondent in Approval Petition No. 43 of 2004, dated 01.08.2005, is under challenge in this Writ Petition, filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation'), in and by which the approval for dismissal of the second respondent from the service of the Corporation was rejected.2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was appointed as a Helper on daily wages on 16.05.1994 in the Corporation in its Tindivanam Branch; he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 10.01.2003 and caused dislocation of normal work; hence, a charge memo was issued to him and explanation was called for from him; as the explanation was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice; in the enquiry, it was held that the charges against the second respondent had been proved; taking into account the past record of service, second show cause notice was issued to him, proposing the...

Madura Coats Ltd. Rep. by Its Vice President, Legal and Company Secret ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009LC(MAD)837; (2009)8MLJ1320

N. Kirubakaran, J.1. These writ appeals have been preferred against the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 15685, 20970, 14691 and 13951 of 2001 dated 28.9.2001, 25.9.2001, 25.9.2001 and 25.9.2001 respectively dismissing the aforesaid writ petitions confirming the proceedings of the third respondent in his proceedings permanent B.P.167 dated 11.10.2000 in respect of withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit by members of the Appellants-associations and quash the same.2. The case of the appellants herein after referred to as 'petitioners' before the learned Single Judge was that the withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit is un-constitutional and the amendment is arbitrary.3. The appellants herein are low tension and high tension electricity consumers and they were covered by the terms and conditions of supply of electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Before availing the supply, the petitioners have to pay initial current consumption deposit...

Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh Represented by Its President Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ15

M. Chockalingam, J.1. All these appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.A. Nos. 1811 of 2005, 854 of 2006 and 2740 to 2742 of 2007 in C.P. Nos. 170 of 1995.2. All the above appeals have been filed under the following facts and circumstances:(a) One M/s. Dev Sugars Limited was ordered to be wound up in C.P. No. 170 of 1995 and C.P. No. 35 of 1997 by an order dated 16.9.1999. An Official Liquidator was appointed who took possession of the assets of the company on 28.9.1999. State Bank of Mysore who extended financial assistance to the said company, in order to secure the outstanding dues, filed O.A. No. 440 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,31,78,558.55. After the decree was made in the said O.A., the Recovery Officer issued an official notice for the sale of the properties in various newspapers fixing the date of auction as 11.8.2005. Since the said company was ordered to be wound up, ...

P. Seethalakshmi Vs. the District Treasury Officer and

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ621

ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The Original Application in O.A. No. 1128 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is now Writ Petition in W.P. No. 5719 of 2007 before this Court.2. Heard Dr. S. Padma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. The petitioner was employed as Secondary Grade Assistant in Panchayat Union Primary School, Nanthaikulam, Madurai District, when she was retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.1997. Since she was retired in the middle of the academic year, she was re-employed until the end of the academic year. Hence she was re-employed in the service from 30.06.1997 to 31.05.1998. She was paid pension from the date of retirement. Later, the pension was revised with effect from 30.06.1997, she was retired on 30.06.1997.4. The Regional Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madurai in his notes of inspection of the Sub-Treas...

Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Rep. by Its Managing D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ991

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This is a revision filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 2889/2009 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the challenge is to the order dated 15.04.2009 in I.A. No. 5320/2009 whereby and whereunder, an interlocutory order to maintain status quo was granted in spite of specific direction issued by the Supreme Court to put the petitioner in possession of the suit property forthwith in case the respondent failed to give an undertaking to vacate the suit premises before 30 November 2009.2. The substantial prayer in the revision is to reject the plaint on the ground of re-litigation.The facts:3. The subject proceeding had a chequered history.4. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 843, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. The property was given on lease to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 157.50. The petitioner originally filed a suit in O.S. No. 174/1978 to evict the respondent from the subject premises. The respondent was ev...

Mrs. Brihatakuchambal Vs. the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribuna ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ539

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in S.A. No. 133 of 2009 dated 29.05.2009 and to quash the same and also for a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to advance arguments in accordance with law.2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application to condone the delay of 120 days in filing an appeal before the first respondent/Tribunal as per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and sought relief to set aside the proceedings initiated under the said Act and that the office of the first respondent/Tribunal, by mistake has numbered the appeal as S.A. No. 263 of 2007, without considering the delay in filing the appeal and after noticing the mistake, immediately withdrew the assigned number and has given Diary No. 1529 of 2007 and the second and third respondents have taken notice of the application to c...

M.J. Janarthanan Vs. K.A. Nagayasamy and Nageswaran

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1112

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act by the father of the minor children M.J. Kishore and M.J. Poornima.2. The first respondent is the father-in-law and the second respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that he got married to one Nagasubbu according to the Hindu Rites and Customs on 22.08.1993. After their marriage, a matrimonial home was set up at No. 1, Sembangi Nagar, Thirunindravur. The petitioner was employed in Muscat at that time in Oil Rig and hence, he left his wife with his mother and sisters. The petitioner's wife left the matrimonial home without any justification. At the instigation of respondents, a criminal complaint was given by his wife to the All Women Police Station, Avadi.3. Pursuant to the reconciliation among the family members, the petitioner set up a separate matrimonial home at No. 8, Chitraiveedhi, Annanur and were living in the said place. When the petitioner an...

The Manager Canara Bank Ootacamund Branch Nilgiris and Others Vs. the ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The opposite parties before the lower forum are the appellants herein. 2. The respondents herein as complainants accused the appellants as if they have committed deficiency in service, thereby caused loss to the 2nd complainant and therefore the same has to be redressed. According to the complainants, the 2nd complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11000/- under Kamathenu Deposit Scheme for 10 years, which would yield maturity value of Rs.34,181/-, that the 2nd complainant had borrowed a business loan of Rs.30000/- on 10.4.2001, and that towards the said loan he had paid Rs.18600/- commencing from 10.4.2001 to 23.9.2002, that despite the above fact, for the alleged arrears, the appellants / opposite parties preclosed the Fixed Deposit and appropriated the proceeds towards the loan illegally, which amounts to not only deficiency in service but also illegal and against the terms of contract and because of the above conduct of the bank, he suffered the maturity value as...