Chennai Court March 2010 Judgments

Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Shiba Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present. The learned JCDR fairly states that in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Ceat Ltd. - 2005 (183) ELT A195 (SC) and also the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner Vs. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 542 (Tri. - LB), the Department’s appeal has no merit. As such, the appeal is dismissed....

Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Trichy Detergents Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran. He fairly states that in view of the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Naga Ltd. 2007 (200) ELT 452 (SC), the Departments appeal has no merit. As such, we reject the appeal....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Pushkalambal,

Court: Chennai

C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 05.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 839 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,31,260/- with 9% 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/third respondent 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 10.05.1999, at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner, Simmaraj, aged about 20 years, was travelling on his TVS motorcycle at Kangeyam road, Tiruppur, from east to west, keeping to the left side of the road, and when he was nearing State Bank of Trivancore, a lorry bearing registration No. TN37 B7335, coming from behind and ...

M. Sadasivam Sub Inspector of Police Vs. the Inspector General of Poli ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The applicant was appointed as Grade II Constable on 02.07.1962, promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1979 and posted as regular Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1982. While he was working at Cuddalore District during 10.11.1997 to 21.12.1998 at Veppur Police Station, on 03.12.1998, one Selvarani of Veppur Village came to the police station to give a complaint complaining rape on her. On being informed about the same, the applicant returned to the Station at about 3 pm. After preliminary enquiry, the applicant registered a case at 3.00 p.m on 03.12.1998. The applicant thought it fit to send the complainant for medical examination and sought the assistance of the women police by wireless message from Chidambaram Women Police Station to accompany the complainant. According to the applicant, as women constables were not available, he could not neither detain the complainant beyond 6 p.m in the station nor send the complainant to the hospital...

Zeron Electronics (P) Ltd., Vs. State Bank of India Guindy Branch and ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The petitioners, a Private Limited Company, its two Directors and a Guarantor to a loan transaction have filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No. 96 of 2006 dated 8.9.2006, confirming the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in M.A. No. 134 of 203 in O.A. No. 1639 of 1998 dated 24.3.1006.2.(a) The case of the petitioners are that the first petitioner, a Private Limited Company, was carrying on business in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power System in their factory premises at Thuraipakkam, Chennai 96, and the Company had its Office at No. 69/9, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 33. The first petitioner availed credit facilities from the first respondent Bank and the second, third and fourth petitioners stood as guarantors. In order to secure the loan, an equitable mortgage was created in favour of the Bank in respect of four items of property ow...

Optigrab International Vs. Government of India

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2010(253)ELT722(Mad)

M. Venugopal, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of order of the single Judge made in W.P. No. 695 of 2009 dated 14-7-2009 [2009 (243) E.L.T. 679 (Mad.)] confirming the order of Additional Bench of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission holding that the Settlement Application filed by the Appellant in respect of three show cause notices is not maintainable under Section 127B of the Customs Act and that the applications do not satisfy the pre-requisites of Section 127B.2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready made garments. The entire garments manufactured were exported to overseas customers viz., M/s. Knock out, M/s. Esprit and M/s. S. Oliver Company. Under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, the Appellant firm availed certain duty free cotton yarn/fabrics without paying duty for such imports. On gathering intelligence that the Appellant procured duty free cotton yarn/fabrics by availing benefits under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules,...

K. Kothandaraman Vs. Mathivanan and

Court: Chennai

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the fair and Decretal order, dated 29.12.2008, made in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, reversing the fair and decreetal order, dated 09.04.2008, made in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, by the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, for bare injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application, in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, praying for an interim order of injunction. The trial Court, by its order, dated 09.04.2008, had granted an order of interim injunction. Thereafter, the interim order granted had been made absolute.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had filed an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee....

Kalyanam @ Kalyanaraman and Chandrasekaran Vs. State Rep. by the Inspe ...

Court: Chennai

S. Nagamuthu, J.1. Appellants are A1 and A2. They were facing trial in S.C. No. 123 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. By judgement dated 17.04.2007, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 for offences under Section 324 of IPC (Two Counts) and under Section 304(ii) of IPC and A2 for offence under Section 324 of IPC alone. The leaned Judge sentenced A1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 324 of IPC (Two counts) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC; and sentenced A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 324 of IPC. Challenging the conviction and sen...

Mr. Sanjeev Vs. Mrs. V. Sathvika

Court: Chennai

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 30.11.2009, made in I.A. No. 1422 of 2009, in H.M.O.P. No. 184 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.2. It has been stated that the respondent, in the present Civil Revision Petition, has filed H.M.O.P. No. 184 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, for divorce, on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner, during the course of the proceedings, in H.M.O.P. No. 184 of 2008, had filed the Interlocutory Application Nos. 1422 and 1423 of 2009, to recall and re-examine the respondent, as a witness. The Family Court, Coimbatore, by its order, dated 30.11.2009, had dismissed the Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner, as not maintainable. It had also stated that the petitioner had not been examined and it is only the mother of the petitioner, as a power agent, has made a claim that the respondent had expressed her willingness to live with the petitioner.3. From ...

Vinayaka Mission University, (Declared Under Section 3 of the U.G.C. A ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERR. Subbiah, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Vinayaka Mission University for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and grant necessary permission for the 21 Indian Students, who have obtained M.B.B.S. Degree through the Off-shore Campus-Bangkok, Thailand of the petitioner to undertake Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (Screening Test), during September, 2009, to enable them to undergo Internship/C.R.R.I. in India as part of the M.B.B.S. program to be held on 27.09.2009 and to get themselves enrolled as Medical Practitioner in India after the completion of the Internship of one year as requested in the letter of the petitioner dated 14.09.2009.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Deemed University declared under Section 3 of U.G.C. Act by Notification dated 01.03.2001 of the Central Government. The petitioner deemed university has Constituent Colleges in the field of Medicine, Dental, Engineering, Management Program, etc. The petitioner applied to ...