Chennai Court January 2010 Judgments

Meera Impex Vs. Cestat

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]25STT302

M.M. Sundresh, J.1. In view of the common issues involved in all the writ petitions and also in view of the fact that a common order has been passed which has been challenged in these writ petitions they have been taken up together for disposal.2. The petitioners filed appeals to the first respondent, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent. While filing the applications seeking to condone the delay of 80 to 86 days in preferring the appeals, an affidavit was filed by the authorised representative one Mr. Radhakrishna Sharma in support of the petitions filed for condoning the delay stating that the papers have been entrusted to him for filing the appeals and the appeals could not be filed in time, in view of the serious illness caused to his mother and thereafter to himself. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the writ petitioners stating that the reasons assigned by the petitioners were not satisfactory and in any case the subsequent delay has not been explained...

R. Sundaramurthy Vs. the Joint Registrar of Coop Societies and Madura ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent Co-operative Society dated 30.10.2000 confirming the order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the second respondent.2. The petitioner was a clerk of the second respondent Co-operative Society. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 24.11.1998. Subsequently, a charge memo was framed on 04.01.1999. A show cause notice dated 19.01.1999 was issued to the petitioner stating that since he had accepted the charges and the charges were severe, he should be dismissed from service. After getting his explanation and placing it before the Board of Directors and passing a resolution dated 04.03.1999, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.03.1999. The petitioner was informed that his dismissal came into effect from 24.11.1998, namely the date of suspension.3. The petitioner had filed a revision before the first respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Coop...

Nallappa Gopalswamy and R.V. Prasanna Venkatesan S. Ganapathy Vs. Stat ...

Court: Chennai

C.T. Selvam, J.1. These appeals arise against the Judgment passed by the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C. No. 8 of 2000 dated 17.08.2004. All the accused were charged for offences under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Provention and Corruption Act, 1988 and specific charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (1)(d) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988; 409, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 467 IPC against the first accused and Under Section 420 IPC against the third and fourth accused were framed. On completion of trial, the lower court has entered a finding as below:Accused ChargesSl. No.A-1 to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergoRI for 3 months for each of the 7 offences under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988; 13(2)r/w 13(1)(c) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) r/w 15 of PC Act, 1988; 409, 467, 468 and 471r/w 467 IPC.A-3 to ...

K. Sulochana Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance and A ...

Court: Chennai

C.T. Selvam, J.1. These appeals arise against the Judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil in S.C. No. 1 of 1991 dated 31.01.2002.2. Originally there were 9 accused in the case and of them two subsequently died. 7 accused stood trial in Spl. Case No. 1 of 1991 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil. They were charged as follows:Accused ChargesSl. No.A-1 120(b), 420, 471 r/w 467 of IPC 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 IPCA-2 120(b), 420 r/w 109 IPC, 467, 468 of IPC, 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 IPCA-3 120(b), 420 r/w 109 IPC, 467, 468 of IPC, 5(1)(d) r/w 5(1)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 IPCA-4 120(b), , 420, 471 r/w 109 of IPC, 467 [3 counts] of IPC 5(1)(d) r/w 5(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act.A-5 120(b), , 420 r/w 109 IPC, 468 of IPC, 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the Preventionof Corruption Act r/w 109 IPCA-6 120(b), , 420 r/w 109 ...

K. Subramanian Vs. the Director of Elementary Education and ors.

Court: Chennai

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. While W.P. No. 17377/2009 is for a direction against the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner for the period between 16.6.1997 and 01.1.2003 by treating the said period as period of service and pay all attendant and monetary benefits, W.P. Nos. 19330/2009 and 19397/2009 are for regularising the service of the petitioners for the period from 16.6.1997 to 01.6.2008 by treating the said period as service period and for the consequential benefits as stated above.2. All the writ petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Assistants at the Panchayat Union Middle Schools which are aided middle schools. While the petitioner in W.P. No. 17377/2009 has retired on 31.3.2003, the petitioner in W.P. No. 19330/2009 has retired from service on 31.5.2009 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 19397/2009 is yet to retire. When the Elementary School in which the petitioners were appointed was closed due to certain local problems and consequently the said school was...

N. Rajamani Vs. the Secretary to Government Highways (Hl) Department a ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice.2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. He was formerly working as a Junior Engineer in Thirunavallur Panchayat Union. He has come forward to challenge the show cause notices issued by the first respondent State dated 04.04.2006. The petitioner was given a charge memo dated 29.12.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegation in the charge memo relates to not accounting the cement bags allotted to the Panchayat Union for carrying out the public works. The irregularities were found after the audit raised objection with reference to the usage of the cement bags. The petitioner had reached the age of superannaution on 31.12.1998. However, he was retained in service in order to complete the disciplinary action initiated against him. The matter was transmitted to the State Government on the basis of the enquiry report g...

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by Its Secretar ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERElipe Dharmarao, J.1. Since both these writ petitions are inextricably interconnected with each other, arguments were heard in common and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Before deciding the above two cases, a brief history which paved way for the filing of these two cases needs to be narrated, for better appreciation of the facts of the cases on hand.3. Aggrieved at the manner in which the tanneries in the state of Tamilnadu are posing threat to the ecosystem and alleging that enormous discharge of untreated effluents into the river Palar is resulting in non-availability of potable water in the area, a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 914 of 1991 by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents therein viz. Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu, to immediately pay adequate compensation to victims of pollution and t...

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram) D ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vilupuram Division is the petitioner and the challenge is to an order passed by the first respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act') refusing to accord approval for the dismissal of the second respondent.2. The facts of the case being that the second respondent was a driver employed in the petitioner corporation and at the time of appointment he had produced a transfer certificate in proof of his educational qualification, which contained the seal of the Headmaster, Government High School Ussoor, bearing admission No. 1231. Based on the such certificate, the second respondent was appointed and an undertaking was obtained from him stating that if any information given by him is found to be false, he would be terminated from service. The transfer certificate was forwarded to the concerned school for verification of its genuineness and ...

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. M. Rames ...

Court: Chennai

N. Kirubakaran, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation against the award of Rs. 6,00,000/-.2. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal is that:When the accident was occurred on 16.03.2001, the respondent was riding his motorcycle which was hit by the appellant Corporation bus driven in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the respondent sustained severe crush injuries of right arm leading to amputation of thumb and two and three fingers and injuries all over his body. Hence, the respondent filed claim petition before the Tribunal which was resisted by the Transport Corporation.3. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation Bus and taking into consideration of the injuries caused to the Crane Operator claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. This said award is being challenged before this Court by the Transport Corporat...

M/S. Kumaravel Packers and Movers Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides on the appeal against the confirmation of demand of service tax on the ground that the assessees were rendering Cargo Handling Service, and imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that on merits the issue stands against the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of J.K. Transport Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2006 (2) STR 3 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it has been held that a proprietary firm, cannot be said to be an individual undertaking the activity of loading and unloading of cargo in individual capacity and hence covered under cargo handling services. However, I find merit in the submission of the assessees that the demand for the period from August, 2002 to 31.01.2004, is barred by limitation for the reason that the show cause notice neither invokes the proviso to Section 73(1)(a) nor does it spell out any ingredient of any suppression/misdeclaration with an intention to evade payment of duty so as to make the ...