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.
Shri Hubaji Ganesh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
The authorities below have ordered confiscation of watches valued at approx.Rs.17.39 lakhs seized on 23.9.06 from the baggage brought by one Shri Narayan Lal from Hong Kong by Indian Airlines flight IC 556 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine and have imposed penalties on the passenger, on one Shri Shivlal and a penalty of Rs.75,000/- on the appellant herein who is the nephew of Shivlal, under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the department against the present appellant is that subsequent to 31.7.06, he purchased air tickets for Narayan Lal and therefore facilitated Narayan Lal in smuggling watches into India. 2. I have heard both sides. Shri Narayan Lal has stated in detail as to the modus operandi adopted by him in which he has implicated only Shri Shivlal and has stated that even for the present trip to Hong Kong and return therefrom, it is Shivlal who paid for his ticket. He does not implicate the appellant. The case against the ...
Cce, Chennai Vs. JaIn Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard the Ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. In both these cases the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. In the light of the settled law in this regard, these two departmental appeals have no merit. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed....
M/S. Prime Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard the Ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution....
M/S. Aromen Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard the Ld. JCDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Cetex Petrochemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In this case the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. In the light of the settled law in this regard, departmental appeal has no merit. Hence, the departmental appeal is dismissed. 2. The cross-objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of....
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Samad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 23.11.2001, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1584 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Tindivanam, awarding a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- 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/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, Shamshath, was Fruit Merchant and aged about 21 years. On 19.02.1998, the petitioner was travelling in a van bearing registration No. TN32 Z3868, from Kallakurichi to Madras to receive her relative, who was coming from abroad. When the van had passed Tindivanam and when the van was proceeding on the GST road, 2 Kms. away from Tindivanam, the first respo...
Malik Basha and Vs. Soukath Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
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 21.11.2008, made in I.A. No. 142 of 2007, in O.S. No. 12 of 2005, on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram.2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S. No. 12 of 2005. The petitioners had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 12 of 2005, for partition and for separate possession of 2/3rd share in the suit property. The petitioners had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 142 of 2007, in O.S. No. 12 of 2005, praying for an order to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint.3. The learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, by his order, dated 21.11.2008, had dismissed the application stating that the amendment sought for by the petitioners would change the character of the suit. The plaintiffs in the suit had claimed in the plaint that the suit p...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. G. Arumugam and Bismikamarthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
D. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. A two-wheeler, namely, TVS 50 Moped, of the second respondent was insured with the appellant. The second respondent rode the moped and hit the first respondent cyclist on 25.10.1996 and caused grievous injuries. Due to the accident, the first respondent suffered fracture at the right leg. The first respondent filed M.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub-Court),Tuticorin, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub-Court), Tuticorin, passed an order on 05.09.2002, granting a sum of Rs. 56,500/- as compensation, with interest at 9% and costs. The appeal is against the said order.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on the appellant as well as the first respondent. The second respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and here again, there is no representation.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had specificall...
G. Mahendran Vs. the Managing Director the Tamil Nadu Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner, against the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 108 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, awarding a compensation amount of Rs. 50,490/- 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 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, in M.C.O.P. No. 108 of 2003, dated 15.12.2004, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 23.12.2002, when the petitioner, along with his wife, was travelling as a passenger in the respondent's bus bearing registration No. TN23 N0931 from Vellore to Kathalampattu and when the bus was nearing Kannikoil near Kanniambadi, a bus bearing registration...
Kumaran Chemicals (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Partner D. Thillairaj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners seek quash of investigation in Crime Nos. 132 of 2006 and 32 of 2007 on the files of the respondent police, Karaikkal. Such cases have been registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 379 r/w 34 IPC r/w Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 relating to the alleged theft of electricity. The occurrence of theft is said to be in the year 2006 and FIRs have been registered by the respondent police on the basis of the complaints received from the Assistant Engineer, Urban, Electricity Department, Karaikkal.2. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.3. The short point taken in support of the petitions is that Sections 122 to 185 of the Electricity Act came into force on 10.06.2003 and under Section 151 of the Act, 'No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their o...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »