Chennai Court October 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.
Ramesh .. Vs. Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.4.2003 in S.C.No.42 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur, whereby the appellant-A.4, along with A.1 to A.3, were convicted for the offence under Section 436 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, each to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Prior to the occurrence, A.2 Velmurugan attempted to outrage the modesty of one Kayalvizhi, who is the relative of P.W.2 Narayanasamy. Since the father and the brother of Kayalvizhi were abroad, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taking care of the family of Kayalvizhi. (b) Since P.W.2 is a retired Headmaster, he condemned the activities of A.2. A.1 Palanivel and A.2 Velmurugan have given a Police complaint before Jayankondam Police Station, stating that during the Panchayat, P.W.1 Anandan assaulted A.1 and A.2, and the complain...
R.Rajendran .... Vs. Velmurugan,t. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. The Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sections 80 to 84, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), 123(i)(ii)(iii), 3A, 4, 135(1), 135A(e) and 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, "R.P.Act") read with Rule 54A of the Conduct of Election Rules, read with Rule 2 of the Madras High Court (Election Petition) Rules, 1967 to declare the election of the 1st Respondent from No.64, Panruti Assembly Constituency in the general election held on 8.5.2006 and the result of which declared on 11.5.2006 as illegal and void.2. The Petitioner contested the 13th Assembly elections held in the State of Tamil Nadu as a candidate of All India Dravida Munnetra Khazhagam (in short, "AIADMK") for No.64, Panruti Assembly Constituency in the official symbol of the political party viz., "two leaves" symbol. The 1st Respondent - elected candidate represented Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and was allotted the official symbol of "Mango". Respondents 2 to 4 represented the recognised...
The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 01.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,27,500/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 24.03.2003, at about 2.30 a.m. the petitioners along with their minor son Giri were standing in the Hosur Bus Stand. At that time, the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1380 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their minor son and ran over his head. Immediately after the said accident, he was taken to Hosur Government Hospital for treatment. F...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Sakthi Industrials
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Classification of water filters manufactured and cleared by the respondents herein is the issue for determination in the present appeal - whether under CET sub-heading 7323.10 as tableware and kitchenware etc. as claimed by the assessees or under CET sub heading 8421.10 as filtering or purifying machinery or apparatus as contended by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the same issue had come up for determination before the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Vasundara Enterprises [2008 (221) ELT 51] and the Bench had accepted the stand of the Revenue that being filter or purifying apparatus for water, such filters made of stainless containing ceramic candles fall for classification under chapter heading 84.21 which is a specific entry covering ceramic water filters and parts thereof. The Bench has relied upon HSN notes covering purifiers of all types under heading 84.21. Although the ld. consultant attempts to persuade the Bench that exc...
Susmi Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The only prayer in these appeals before us against confiscation of fresh garlic for want of licence is reduction in the quantum of the fine and penalty. 2. We have heard both sides and find no ground to interfere with the impugned order for the reason that the appellants are repeated offenders and also for the reason that the fine and penalty are quite reasonable having regard to the value of the goods in question. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....
Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in these appeals is whether floor sweepings arising during the course of manufacture of detergents and comprising waste material and residual waste of raw material, is dutiable. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled by the Tribunal’s decision in Kailash Soap Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Bolpur [2008 (23) ELT 176] holding that floor sweepings arising in the process of manufacture of soap comprising of waste material and residual waste of raw material is not dutiable as no evidence establishing its marketability was produced by the Revenue. In that case, as in the present one, the floor sweepings were cleared on a nominal value but in spite of that, the Bench held that the item was not excisable and hence not liable to duty. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
M/S. Habasit Iakoka P. Ltd Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. In this case the appellants were manufacturers of synthetic sandwich spindle tapes and flat transmission belts, supplied New Year diaries to their dealers / buyers at 25% of the cost of the diaries. The amount collected by the appellants towards supply of the diaries has been included in the assessable value of the excisable goods by the Department leading to this appeal. 3. Shri S. Kandasamy, learned consultant appearing for the appellants states that since the diary was a promotional item and the same was sold to their dealers without any compulsion, the cost of such diaries cannot be added to the assessable value. In this regard, he cites the decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Punjab Tractors Ltd. - 2009 (237) ELT 515 in support of his argument. 4. Heard the learned SDR Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, who supports the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and ...
Eta Engineering Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely classification of “ducts” manufactured out of G.I. sheets stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case reported in 2006 (197) ELT 372 which has been upheld by the apex court by rejection of the Revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s order, as seen from 2006 (200) A138 (SC). It has been held that goods in question, which are identical to the goods in the present case, fall for classification under Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees. The result of classification under Heading 73.08 is that goods would be exempt from payment of duty. Although the Commissioner in the present impugned order has held that classification will be under Heading 73.04, in view of the apex court’s decision cited supra, we do not uphold the classification under Heading 73.04 but under Heading 73.08. 2. The appeal is d...
The Superintending Engineer Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Order dated 18.10.2004, made in W.C.No.307 of 2002, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen's Compensation), Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,71,300/-, failing which together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside order passed by the Tribunal. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows:One P.Vadivel, Contract Labour, a workman employed by (a contractor with) the opposite party-I of the TNEB day of 07.01.2002 received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death on 07.01.2002. The cause of the injury was in discharging the fuse of all work at electric pole, he met electric cut resulting death. The applicant is dependant of the...
P.Kumar ... Vs. Sanjay Agarwal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.04.2009 in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.2.The trial court in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 on 30.04.2009 has among other things held that 'the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff neither paid the Court fee within the period of limitation nor filed Application under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to extend time for payment of deficit Court Fee and opined that the defect of non filing of application under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to extend the time of payment of deficit Court Fee cannot be cured' and resultantly, allowed the Interlocutory Application praying to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code without costs. 3. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the order of the trial court in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »