Chennai Court February 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.
G.Kista Reddy Versus the Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
ACA Adityan The petitioner, who was discharged from the Army service under medical category EEE with Schizophrenia-295, had approached the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of W.P.No.8634 of 2001 for disability pension. After the constitution of this Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the said writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.57 of 2009. 2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner was selected for the post of Clerk in the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry in the selections held in Mahabubnagar in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner also underwent medical examination in the Military Hospital at Secunderabad at the time of his selection. Since the petitioner was medically fit in the medical category AYE, he was recruited by the Recruitment Officer at Secunderabad and was allotted the trade of Clerk in the J and K Light Infan...
M.D. Iqbal Basha and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The petitioners 1 to 27 filed the present writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent, General manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), Chennai, quash the same and further direct respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioners w.e.f. 13th Jan., 1988 with all consequential benefits, including equal pay in the circumstances of the case.2. The respondent Corporation is not wholly owned by Government of India, but only 84% of the shares are held by the Government of India and the remaining shares are held by financial institutions. Therefore, the Corporation is an authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. When the matter was taken up, it was brought to the notice of the court that petitioners 4 and 13 had withdrawn from the proceedings and, therefore, they are not parties t...
Mr. E. Raghupathy S/O. (Late) Elumalai and ors. Vs. the Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent not to enter into the petitioners' land, in survey No. 296/2, measuring 1 acre and 17 cents.2. It has been stated that the petitioners' grand father, A. Rathinam, had purchased certain patta land in Padi, Mugappair village, during the year, 1942, through a registered sale deed, dated 15.6.1942, bearing document No. 669 of 1942, on the file of the Sub Registrar's office, Sembium. The petitioners' grand father and their father were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land bearing survey No. 296/2, measuring an extent of 1 acre and 87 cents. The possession of the petitioners had been proved by the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Munsif Court, in O.S. No. 64 of 2007. While so, the third respondent is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to the petitioners, in survey No. 296/2, havi...
Bagiyam Vs. Rangasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
ORDERM.M. Sundresh, J.1. The revision has been filed by the petitioner who is the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 1294 of 1986 seeking to dismiss the application filed by the respondents in E.P. No. 84 of 2001 to execute the decree in O.S. No. 1294 of 1986 dated 24.11.1994.2. The brief facts of the facts are as follows:2.1. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 1294 of 1986 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal against the petitioner and others seeking a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed after contest on 24.11.1994. Thereafter the respondents herein filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 353 of 1995. Thereafter the respondents not pressed the executive petition filed in E.P. No. 350 of 1995 on the ground that an amended application will have to be filed to amend the decree in so far as the Survey No is concerned. Therefore an application in I.A. No. 928 of 1998 was filed to amend the decree. Accordingly by the order da...
K.V. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
B. Rajendran, J.1. The writ appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner as against the order of this Court dated 08.12.2008 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 10566 of 2009.2. The petitioner would contend that the property comprised in Survey No. 945/6 measuring an extent of 1368 square foot referred to in the impugned notice of the first respondent belongs to her absolutely. She would contend that even though the impugned notice was issued to her husband, she is entitled to question the same in this proceedings. She would contend that originally the property was belonging to one Angu Thayammal and Nani Pandithar. From whom one Govindasamy Naidu had purchased the property way back in the year 1953. As the property was adjacent to the temple/the second respondent, originally, there was a proposal to have an exchange of the property way back in the year 1966. But, it did not fructify. Subsequently in the year 2007, according to the petitioner, the second respondent temple passed resolution that the...
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Sivayo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
P. Murgesen, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No. 397 of 2007 dated 06.11.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Pudukottai.2. The brief facts arising out of this appeal are as under:On 21.02.2007, the deceased Ganesan was travelling as a pillion rider in a TVS-50 two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-55-T-2752, returning from Sethangudi. When they tried to enter into a road towards left side to reach the Pudukottai-Aranthangi Main Road, a bus bearing Registration No. TN-55-N-0451 belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the two-wheeler, due to which the deceased Ganesan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The rider of the two-wheeler also died due to the accident. The respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesan, claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000...
M. Natarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II, on 23.12.1987, in the office of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai. Thereafter, on 27.4.1994, he had been promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, and he was posted in the Regional Transport Office, Coimbatore South. Later, he was transferred to the Regional Transport Office, Coimbatore North, with effect from 13.3.1998. After he had served in various places he had been transferred to the Regional Transport Office, Salem, on 12.11.2004. The next promotion of the petitioner should have been, as Regional Transport Officer, as his name stood at the 4th position and his name had been included in the seniority list, for the year 2005-2006.3. While so, the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 12.11.2004, had framed a charge against the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Manali Bitumen Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal viz. whether the conversion of straight grade bitumen into blown grade bitumen through oxidation known as blowing process amounts to ‘manufacture’, stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the apex court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs Tikatar Industries [2006 (202) ELT 215 (SC)], holding that such process does not amount to ‘manufacture’. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue....
M/S. Mfpl Flourine Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The brief facts of the case as stated by the original authority are as follows:- “During the year December, 1996 due to heavy rains and floods, raw materials/finished products/work-in-progress have been lost in floods and M/s.MFPL have made insurance claim with M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against their policy. However, the occurrence of the loss was not intimated to the Central Excise Department. A show cause notice bearing O.C. No. 1/2000 Dt. 01.09.2000 was issued to them based on the report filed by Internal Audit and based on their insurance claim demanding excise duty attributable to the MODVAT credit taken on the input materials lost in the floods to the extent of Rs.91,087/- under Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as such inputs have not been used by M/s.MFPL in their factory in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and also demanding excise duty of Rs.1,59,608/- on the finished produc...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Vishnupriya Paper Mills P. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the assessees are manufacturers of various kinds of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the CETA 85. Among the various kinds of paper manufactured by them, newsprint falling under CETA SH 4801.00 and writing or printing paper for printing educational text books falling under CETA SH 4802.10 are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. The assessees were taking MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of all varieties of paper and maintaining common credit account for such inputs. As per Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other final product chargeable to Nil rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of both the above mentioned categories of final products, the manufacturer shall, except in the case of one who maint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »