Chennai Court March 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.
V. Venkadasalam Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. (Presently Kno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 21.04.1997, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2814 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V, Madras, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, V. Venkadasalam, is an Advocate of High Court, Madras and earning an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. On 28.09.1994, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TMS1383 and was proceeding from Royapettah to High Court and nearing the High Court entrance near north fort side roa...
Ruth Shipping Agencies Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
The appellant herein is a CHA who had received brokerage charges from steamer agent for providing services which appeared to be classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service during the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Brokerage charge of Rs.5,44,305/- had been collected during the above period and, therefore, the CHA was held to be liable to pay service tax of Rs.55,520/-. Show-cause notice proposing recovery of the amount above mentioned invoking the extended period, and proposing recovery of interest and imposition of penalty was issued; notice was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner who accepted the assessees contention of non-liability of service tax. The order was reviewed by the Commissioner who held that assessees had received commission for arranging containers for their client for the purpose of export and hence the assessees were liable to pay service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. He, therefore, confirmed the demand as raised in the notice together with in...
M.Vetri Selvan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
All the above appeals involve a common issue namely as to amount of service tax required to be paid by the appellants herein who are individual cable operators and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard both sides on the enhancement of service tax liability on each assessee by the Commissioner in his Order-in-Revision. He has held that each of the individual cable operators had 350 cable connections and collected Rs.200/- per month per connection from the subscribers during the material period, evading service tax liability. The reliance has been placed on a register seized from Madurai Cable TV Communication (MCTC) to hold that each individual cable operator had 350 connections. Author of this register is one Ramesh who has deposed that the register contained details as to number of KTV connections held by each individual cable TV operator. He has also deposed that Rs.20/- is the payment made for each KTV connection to them (MCTC). The Commissio...
Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai Vs. A.K.Marble and Granite ( ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
For reasons recorded below, I reject the application of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of excess quantity of polished marble slabs imported by the respondents herein and also reduced the penalty, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself today with the consent of both sides, as the issue as to whether reduction in fine and penalty in such situation is warranted, stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Pune Vs Dipen Enterprises [2003 (160) ELT 632]. 2. I note that the reasoning of the lower appellate authority for reduction in both fine and penalty is the fact that differential duty involved on the goods is only Rs.75,743/-. No ground has been made out by the Revenue for enhancement. Further, in the decision cited supra, it has been held that for import of marginal excess quantity of marble (in the present case also, the excess is to the extent ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. P. Govindaraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
R. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2001 dated 30.10.2003 thereby Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,21,040/- to the Claimants who are parents of the deceased Manohar who died in a road traffic accident on 08.10.2000.2. Brief facts are that on 08.10.2000, deceased Manohar was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. TN-27 V 3949 [National Transport Bus] from Thathagapatty to Sankari. When bus was proceeding near Thalaiyur Pirivu, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden the bus collided over another bus which came in the opposite direction. Due to the impact, the passengers including Manohar who were sitting in front portion of the bus sustained head injuries and injuries all over the body. Manohar was immediately taken to Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem where he was treated in Intensive Care Unit from 08.10.2000 to 19.10.2000. Inspite of best treatment, Manohar su...
S. Prabu Vs. the Regional Manager and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Vs. Devarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellant/Referring Officer has projected this appeal as against the Award dated 28.02.2002 in L.A.O.P. No. 17 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.2. The Government have acquired 0.48.0 hectare of land in S. No. 126/2B and 0.01.5 hectares of land in S. No. 126/2C including the well and thatched house (totalling in all 0.50.0 hectare) in Harur Town, Harur Taluk of Dharmapuri District belonging to the respondent/claimant for the purpose of providing burial ground to the Adi Dravidars of Harur Town. After complying with the necessary formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer published the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (herein referred to as Act) in the Government gazette on 15.09.1993. Section 6 declaration was made on 25.01.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 15.03.1994 in Award 693/94 for acquiring 1.23 acres of land (0.50.0 hectares) in S. No. 126 of Harur Village had fixed the m...
Velu Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 06.04.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 165 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Arni, awarding a compensation of Rs. 35,800/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner, Velu, has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs. 2,14,200/- together with interest and costs.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 16.10.2001, at about 06.00 p.m. when the petitioner attempted to board the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No. TN23 N0579 at Timiri Village Bus stop in order to go to Arcot, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus forward at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of this, the petitioner ...
T. Kanagaraj Vs. the Village Panchayat President Kattukudalur Panchaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition, as not pressed. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs....
S. Duraisamy Vs. C. Kanagasabapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Heard both.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the above petition, since the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode mainly on the ground that the documents containing the admitted signature of the petitioner have not been produced and the petitioner wants to produce the documents containing his admitted signature, which are contemporaneous in nature, by filing a comprehensive petition before the court below.3. In view of the above submission and in the light of the endorsement made by the petitioner to that effect and as the learned Counsel for the respondent also agrees for the same subject to the condition that such comprehensive petition should be filed within a time limit as fixed by this Court and also fixing time limit for the disposal of the C.C. No. 187 of 2007, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the ab...