Chennai Court January 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Reva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 12.02.2007, made in M.C.O.P. No. 106 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,34,462/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 07.12.2004, at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioner was riding as a pillion rider, along with her husband in a two wheeler 'Suzuki Samurai' bearing registration No. AP03 D4183, from Chittoor to Vellore and when the vehicle was in Katpadi, on the Vallimalai Junction road, the passenger bus belonging to the respondent b...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Represented Through Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 3.7.2007 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1787 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No. II), Madurai.2. On 19.1.2010, the appellant's counsel canvassed the appeal stating that the quantum of compensation is excessive pointing out certain discrepancy in the monthly income as found in the award. After passing the order, but before the order is signed, it was found that the error was typographical and therefore, the matter was listed before this Court today under the caption 'for being spoken to' and the following order is passed today:3. The only point canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not in dispute and the same is ...
Apsara theatre Rep. by Its Managing Partner Mr. Hameed Nainar Syeed Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in G.O.(D) No. 1338, Home (Cinema II) Department, dated 9.12.2002 and the impugned order of the third respondent passed in Na.Ka. NO. 6624/2002/C1 dated 12.2.2002 and the impugned order of the third respondent passed in proceeding in Na.Ka. No. 6624/2002/C1 dated 17.3.2003 and to quash the same.2. The petitioner's Managing Partner had entered into an agreement from one Ponnathal and Ramakrishnan and nine others, who were the owners of the piece of land in Survey No. 2170, Devadanapatti Village admeasuring one acre and eighteen cents together with superstructure thereon, (a cinema theatre) and the petitioner, after entering into an agreement, approached the third respondent to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' for transferring 'C' form licence in favour of the partners including himself.3...
Kumbakonam Cooperative Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. Both writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, who is a registered Co-operative Society.2. In the first writ petition, the challenge is to the common order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore, dated 14.6.2004 made in several claim petitions filed by respondents 2 to 6. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed several amounts as due to be paid to the workmen. The writ petition was admitted on 26.11.2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 21.2.2005, this Court made the interim stay absolute on condition that 50% of the amount ordered by the Labour Court will have to be deposited to the credit of the claim petitions. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 to 6 moved the State Government under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of the amount due to the workmen as arrears of land revenue by G.O.(D) N...
V. Lakshmi, Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. The three petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition seeking for writ in the nature of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in survey No. 38, Sankarapalayam Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.2. Heard the arguments of Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel leading for Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate taking notice for respondents.3. When the matter came up on 07.10.2009, this Court without admitting the writ petition, granted an interim injunction. The respondents have come forward with a vacate injunction petition in M.P. No. 2 of 2009 supported by a counter affidavit. However, the main matter itself was heard by this Court.4. The petitioners claimed that the land measuring an extent of 6.18 acres in R.S. No. 38, Sankarapalayam Village, Bhavani Taluk, was a joint f...
M/S. the Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
Shri T.H. Rao, Ld. SDR, appearing for the department. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. There is neither any compliance report nor any adjournment request. As such, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the directions dated 14.12.1009, to predeposit Rs. 75,000/- read with provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
M/S. Kanagadurga Clothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2010
Heard both sides. Shri M. Kannan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that at the material time the rate of interest for delay in payment of duty was prescribed as 15% for the first period and 13% for the later period, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the authorities below have demanded interest at 24%, applying provisions of Rule 8 (3) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. He argues that to the extent Rule 8 (3) stipulates a higher rate of interest than what was prescribed under Section 11AB, the Rule has been held to be ultra vires under the following decisions: a. Lucid Colloids Ltd. Vs. UOI 2006 (200) ELT 377 (Raj.) b. Elastolan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata 2007 (216) ELT 297 (Tri.-Kol.) c. Carter Hydraulilc Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata 2008 (229) ELT 603 (Tri.-Kol.) 2. Heard the Ld. JCDR, Shri V.V. Hariharan, who argues that the provisions under Section 11AB applies to delay in payment of duty whereas Rule 8 (3) applies to default u...
G. Khader Sahib Vs. the Principal District Munsif (The Rent Controller ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tindivanam in RCOP No. 1 of 2004, dated 24.01.2005 and for setting aside the same.2.Though the writ petition was presented during summer recess of the year 2007, the matter was not admitted. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 05.06.2007, there was no representation. When the matter came up on 06.06.2007, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, on an application in M.P. No. 4 of 2007 being filed, the matter was restored. In the meanwhile, the respondents were served.3.It is the case of the petitioner that he was a tenant of the premises owned by the eight respondent, which is a registered Wakf. The petitioner was in occupation of 300 sq. ft. of plinth area and was running a provision shop. He was paying due rent to the Wakf. It is also the case of the petitio...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Vs. Kamatch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The United India Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 29.10.2008 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2003 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3), Madurai.2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The accident in this case happened on 8.3.2004 at 9.30 a.m. The deceased Ramu, aged about 40 years, a salesman was proceeding to his company situated at Avaniapuram, was hit by the lorry insured with the appellant. In that accident the said Ramu suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The wife aged 30 years, three minor sons aged 7, 6 and 5 years respectively, mother aged 60 years and father aged 65 years claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. Arumugam, the eye witness to the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Sun Paper Mill Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein purchased Silo from M/s.Globe Radio Co. on payment of duty and installed the same in their premises. A claim for refund of Rs.44,800/- on the item purchased by the respondents was filed; refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority; Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the Silo erected by them was immovable property and cannot be considered as excisable goods, to hold that the assessees were entitled to refund; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard ld.SDR and perused the records assessees have asked for a decision on merits. 3. We find from the invoice of M/s.Globe Radio Co. that item was purchased and moved to the premises of the assessees. It is very much movable goods on which duty had been rightly discharged. What happens subsequently in the assessee s premises is not relevant for determining whether the item of which duty was paid and of which refund is sought was movable goods o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »