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.
M/S.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vs. Angammal (Deceased), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The defendant is the appellant, who has filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.4 of 2001, whereby the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2000 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No.238 of 1998 were set aside.2. The deceased 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent herein as the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.238 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, against the appellant herein (defendant therein) to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs and also to direct the defendant to pay damages for use and occupation to the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of legal notice dated 04.11.1995 till the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of handing over the vac...
P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu General Secretary, Vs. Federation of Associat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. These appeals are directed against the interim orders granted in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.19299 of 2010, M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.19023 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.19300 of 2010, dated 14.09.2010, in and by which, the learned Judge restrained the authorities from enforcing the revised fees structure for various schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Though, there were several writ petitions filed challenging the orders of the fee determination committee only three appeals have been preferred one appeal at the instance of the parents and two appeals by the State. However in order to give a full hearing, we have heard all the learned senior counsels, who appeared before the learned Judge in the interim applications for the association of the management schools and managements of individual schools, and we have heard the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant State.2. Though elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Senior counsels for the ...
R.Krishnamoorthy .... Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the terminal benefits of Rs.6,20,259/- for the period from 1.8.2004 to 9.11.2004 as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and further interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the interest amount claimed. 2. The Petitioner has been working as Joint Director of Cooperative Audit in the Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank, Chennai 1 and retired on superannuation from the Government of Tamil Nadu service on the Afternoon of 31.7.2004. The 2nd Respondent/Pay & Accounts Officer issued authorisation for a sum of Rs.2,70,259/- through the communication letter PAO(E)/BAS-I/Unit-I/380/04 dated 27.09.2004 and subsequently payment of Rs.2,70,259/- was made to the Petitioner only on 9.11.2004. The Death cum Retirement Gratuity (in short, "DCRG") was authorised for payment by the Accountant General, Chennai, vide his AG (A&E;) PEN/P2714/R-10-215/AR/2004-2005/2359 dated 17.08.20...
M.Nagarajan ... Vs. . Director of Animal Husbandry Dms Campus, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as a Casual Labourer in the second respondent farm from 1978. According to him, there were breaks in service and he was employed after such breaks. After 05.10.1981, he was continuously employed. The petitioner states that he worked up to 12.09.1994. He applied for leave due to illness from 13.09.1994 to 31.12.1994. Thereafter, he was not permitted to do the work. According to the petitioner, he rendered 14 years of service without any break and about three years of service with some breaks. Others, who were similarly situated like the petitioner, were regularised in service by the third respondent. 2. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4935 of 2000 (W.P.No.41632 of 2006) seeking for a direction to the respondents to give him re-employment. 3. The respondents 1 & 2 filed reply affidavit stating that the petitioner joined as Casual Labourer only during 1981. He worked for only 10 years. After 1991, he was absent. However, it is stat...
R.Thirugnanam ... Vs. the Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The petitioner entered the services in Police Department as Police Constable on 10.10.1977. After working in various stations, he was transferred and posted to Control Room, Thanjavur. He worked therein from 29.03.1998 to 18.11.1999. While he was working in Control Room, the Police dress intended to the Constable was not supplied to him by the Inspector of Police, Control Room. He made a complaint against the Inspector. Hence, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the Inspector. 2. The Inspector of Police issued a memo to the petitioner on 20.11.1998, for which the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.11.1998 duly narrating the attitude of the Inspector. But no further action was taken against the said Inspector. Therefore, the Inspector induced one Head Constable Mr.Panneer Selvam to make false complaint against the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the Head Constable gave a false complaint on 30.11.1998 against the petitioner stating that the petitioner used abusive...
C.Dorali, and ors. Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the order bearing F.No.12016/6/2001-TA (ME)/C & LM-I (Part.II) dated 8th April, 2009 issued by the first respondent namely, the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India and further directing respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the proposal of the fourth respondent declaring Kuruma, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar as member of the Scheduled Tribes. 2. It appears that by letter dated 21st August, 2006 addressed to the first respondent, the fourth respondent i.e., Government of Tamil Nadu requested the first respondent to include the aforesaid six names as synonyms of Kurumans in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners case is that as per the study conducted by the The Study of Director, Tribal Research Centre, Ooty, it reveals that communities like Kuruma, Kurumba, Kurumba Gounder, Kurumban and Kurumbar are identical to each oth...
M/S. Eltex Super Castings Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coim ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees who are manufacturers of rough castings filed a claim for refund of Rs.50,725/- being the duty paid on development cost of patterns, on the ground that they were entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1999. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it was not substantiated - the assessees could not establish that the ownership of the patterns did not lie with buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claim was admissible on merits as he accepted the assessee’s contention that they were eligible to the exemption under the Notification; however, he rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. The plea of the assessee is that although they had issued credit notes, they had not collected duty from their customers and therefore they are entitled to refund as they have not passed on the incidence of duty to their custome...
M/S. Its Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants have been denied the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No. 230 as it has been held that they have not fulfilled Condition No. 40 specified against the said serial number. The impugned notification grants exemption to goods required for construction of roads. It has been held by the authorities below that the appellants are not mentioned as a sub-contractor in the contract between the Govt. of Tamilnadu and the Tamilnadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC) and hence they do not satisfy clause (a)(iii) of Condition No. 40. However, the learned counsel Shri Alwari appearing for the appellants shows a purchase order dated 10.10.2002 issued by the TNRDC to the appellants for high speed barrier for ECR toll plazas. He also takes us through a letter dated 7.1.2003 issued by the Govt. of Tamilnadu to the Customs authorities clarifying that the appellants are a sub-contractor of the TNRDC. As such, we find that ...
M/S. Agni Steels Ltd Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. CENVAT credit of Rs.2,14,182/- has been denied to the appellants in respect of capital goods received in their factory in February - March 2000 but installed on or after 1.4.2000. Further, deemed credit of Rs.2,08,466/- has been denied on the ground that in respect of MS ingots (inputs) procured by the assessee from their other unit, they did not make any payment by cheque or in cash which is contrary to the conditions 4 and 5 of Notification No. 29/2000-CE dated 31.3.2000. In addition a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against denial of credit and penalty. We find that under the provisions of Rule 57AC (2C), CENVAT credit can be availed on capital goods in the factory prior to 1.4.2000 but not installed prior to that date subject to the condition that during the financial year 2000 - 2001, the credit can be availed only for an amount not exceeding 50% of the duty paid on the goods. The capital goods were installed...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Madurai Soft Drinks Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is as to whether amounts received under credit notes as incentives from supplier of cool drink concentrate (raw material) is required to be included in the assessable value of the cool drinks as additional consideration from the buyers. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in CCE, Meerut Vs. Coolade Beverages Ltd. - 2000 (116) ELT 622 which was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (121) ELT 718. The Civil Appeals filed by the Revenue against the decisions now stand dismissed in CCE, Meerut Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 257 (SC). In the light of the above, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....