Chennai Court January 2010 Judgments

M. Madheswaran Versus Records, the Madras Regiment, Rep by Its Record ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.4852 of 2008 before the Honourable High Court, Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal under Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.27 of 2009. 2. This is an unfortunate case in which the applicant has been suffering from HIV (+) along with Tubercular Lymphadenitis. The applicant challenges the orders of the Respondents 6, 2, 3 and 4 passed in Ref.No.(a) Part II Order No.3/67/99 dated 17.11.1999, (b) Annexure-I dated 24.10.2000 of the second respondent, (c) letter No.B/40502/357/03/AG/PS-4(d) dated 04.04.2003 of the third respondent and (d) 1(90)/2007/D (Pen. A and C) dated 11.06.2007 of the fourth respondent and consequential relief of reinstatement of the applicant in a suitable alternative employment with backwages. 2(a) The applicant joined in the Army on 27.11.1989 as a SAFAIWALA, in the rank of a SEPOY. After rendering 9 years 11...

Rajani Sivakumar and Ramesh Vs. Duraikannu,

Court: Chennai

R. Mala, J.1. The Second Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased second plaintiff-Kribalini, against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 in A.S. No. 44 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2001 in O.S. No. 202 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Nagapattinam.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:The deceased first plaintiff Nagalakshmi's father is Sattaya Pillai and her mother is Rajamani Ammal. They were also having two sons, Viswanathan and Ramachandran and two daughters, Velambal and the deceased first plaintiff-Nagalakshmi. The father and the mother died 15 years ago. The suit properties belong to one Chidambaram Pillai and his wife Sivagami. They do not have any issues. Chidambaram Pillai has executed a Will in favour of Rajamani Ammal on 25.6.1930 bequeathing all his properties in favour of Rajamani Ammal, the mother of the deceased first plaintiff. Since they were not...

R. Augustine Xavier Arockiasamy and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil N ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.W.P. Nos. 23428 to 23457 of 2009:1. Heard both sides. These writ petitioners are working in various posts coming under the 'B' and 'C' categories of the third respondent Co-operative Sugar Mills. The petitioners moved this Court earlier by filing writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 24395 to 24376 of 2008.2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, the facts relating to the first writ petition in W.P. No. 23428 of 2009 are taken up for discussion. The petitioner Mr. R. Augustin Xavier Arokiasamy was the petitioner in W.P. No. 24395 of 2008. The prayer in the earlier writ petitions was for a direction to revise the pay scale to all supervisors of C-Grade employees. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 13.10.2008. This Court, without going into the merits of the contentions, directed the second respondent - Commissioner of Sugar to dispose of the representations of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. Pursuant ...

K.R. Gowri Sedhuraman Vs. the Kumbakonam Municipality, Rep. by Its Exe ...

Court: Chennai

A. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No. 512 of 2005 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam and in Appeal Suit No. 76 of 2007 by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam.2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 512 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant.3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the house situates in TS. Nos. 520, 521, 522 and 525. The plaintiff has given a petition to the defendant in the year 1999 for getting permission so as to put up construction and accordingly permission has been granted. The plaintiff has finished construction and subsequently the same has been informed to the defendant. All of a sudden on 24.11.2004, the defendant has cancelled the earlier taxation numbers 26776, 26777 and 26778 and f...

Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)28VST417(Mad)

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The dispute relating to the taxability of the transaction regarding import of crude oil and the related loan transactions by a public sector organization as per the directions of the Oil Co-ordination Committee is the issue involved in this writ petition.W. P. No. 9356 of 19982. W. P. No. 9356 of 1998 is directed against the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Assessment Circle IV, Chennai, in CST 2087/92-93 dated March 30, 1998, levying sales tax on the loan transaction involving the petitioner-company and the other oil companies. Since the very assessment order impugned in this writ petition has been set aside subsequently by remitting the matter to the original authority, the said writ petition has become infructuous. Therefore, it is the substantive writ petition in W. P. No. 9357 of 1998 which alone survives for adjudication.W. P. No. 9357 of 19983. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit the first respondent from imposing s...

K. Durairaj Vs. Ashok Kakri and N.K. Shah

Court: Chennai

R. Mala, J.1. The Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2002 in A.S. No. 205 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. 2), Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1999 in O.S. No. 1882 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The plaintiff is the owner of the non-residential building. Apart from the suit property, he also owns other non-residential buildings adjacent to the suit property, which were let out to various tenants. The plaintiff is residing behind the suit property with his family. The defendants were his friends and the second defendant took the suit property on lease from the plaintiff on 19.2.1982 as per the unregistered lease agreement and paid the advance of Rs. 7,500/- for running a non-vegetarian hotel under the name of 'Kabab Corner'. The monthly rent was Rs. 400/-. The first defendant to...

The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Vs. M. Somasundaram ...

Court: Chennai

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. The first three of these matters are appeals filed by the Teachers' Recruitment Board and other officers concerned with the School Education in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas other matters are appeals and petitions filed by some of the teachers, who were in charge of computer education. The Teachers Recruitment Board and the officers of the Government concerned with Education are respondents in the appeals and the writ petitions filed by the Computer Instructors, whereas some of the Computer Instructors are the respondents in the three appeals filed by the Teachers' Recruitment Board.2. All these matters relate to the appointment of Computer Instructors in the Government Aided schools and the question of their absorption after participating in the requisite examination for the same.3. Mr. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) has appeared for the Teachers Recruitment Board and the officers concerning education, whereas Mr. Muthukumarasamy, lear...

Mohan Offset Printers Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commi ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The above tax case revision was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in overlooking the jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner that there is no transfer of property in 'goods' as defined under Section 2(u) in the form of 'ink' in the printing contract undertaken by the petitioner for the imposition of sales tax on the deemed sale as defined under Section 2(u) of the TNGST Act, 1959?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not deleting the turnover in relation to the consumables such as oil and labour charges incurred towards the grinding charges which does not involve any transfer of property in goods?3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the law that the addition towards the gross profit is unwarranted since the same is included in the cost price of the goods which are transferred or involved in the execution of works contract?2. The tax case revision ...

M/S. Madhucon Granites Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. The appellants are a 100% EOU who are manufacturing and exporting polished granites. Some of the polished granite slabs were used in the administrative building within the bonded premises of the appellants. On the department pointing out that they are not eligible for such duty free use, the appellants have paid the duty amount. 2. Shri V.J. Shankaran, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants also states that the appellants are ready to pay the interest on the duty amount for the relevant period up to the date of payment of duty, within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Heard the Ld. SDR. 4. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the undertaking by the Ld. Advocate for payment of interest, and also considering the fact that there is no allegation of suppression, fraud etc., made out against the appellants, I hold that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specially wh...

M/S.A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has ordered recovery of drawback amount paid to M/s.Sivam Textiles on the ground that the value declared by them for export of T Shirts was highly inflated with a view to obtain higher inadmissible drawback the F.O.B. value declared was USD 4.5 and 5.65, while investigation revealed that the value would be only between USD 0.50 to 2.00, and imposed penalties inter alia on the partners of M/s.Sivam Textiles, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on Shri Uday Patravali who has been treated as the main brain behind the illegal export, under the provisions of Section 114 (3) for abetment of the offence of misdeclaration of value so as to obtain inadmissible drawback, and penalty of Rs.1 lakh each on Shri C. Selvaraj, partner of the exporter-firm and upon M/s.A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., CHA under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetment of commission of the above offence. 2. The finding of the adjudicating authority is that Shri Uday Patravali was...