Chennai Court April 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.
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Railway Represented by Chief ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
D. Murugesan, J.1. O.S.A. No. 463 of 2009 is filed by Southern Railway represented by its Chief Engineer (Construction), Bangalore and O.S.A. No. 464 of 2009 is filed by South Western Railway represented by its Chief Engineer (CN)/Central, Bangalore Cantonment, Bangalore questioning the common order dated 8.6.2007 dismissing the original petitions filed by the appellants. The parties are referrred to as arrayed in these original side appeals.2. The controversy arose under the following set of facts. By an agreement dated 4.8.99 entered into between the appellants and the first respondent, the contract for construction of road under bridge near Lottegollahalli, between Yeshwanthpur and Yellahanka was awarded in favour of the first respondent. Clause 24.6 of the special conditions of contract relates to vitiation clause and the same reads as under:24.6. When ever vitiation of contract is likely to occur either due to increase or decrease in the quantities of certain item(s) the tenderer/...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Division - I Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Division - I, Chennai-600 002, against the Award and Decree, dated 27.01.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 5228 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. II, Chennai, awarding a compensation amount of Rs. 3,54,500/- 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, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Division - I, Chennai-600 002 has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award passed by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 09.08.2001, at about 08.15 hours the petitioner was carefully travelling as a passenger in a M.T.C.Bus bearing registration No. TN01 N3264, Ro...
P. Ravikumar Vs. Directorate of Technical Education Rep. by the Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner as amended by amendment made in M.P. No. 4 of 2009 dated 27.11.2009 is for quashing the letter dated 11.06.2007 passed by the first respondent - Directorate of Technical Education and the subsequent impugned order of the second respondent dated 13.07.2007 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to permit the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement with all service benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 829 P & AR Department dated 26.08.1985.2. When the writ petition came up on 03.09.2009, private notice was directed to be ordered to the respondents. Accordingly on behalf of the first respondent a counter affidavit dated Nil 2009 and on behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 23.10.2010 were filed. The counter affidavit filed by the State was also supported by supporting documents.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Lab Assistant (Physics Department) in the second respondent colleg...
M/S. Vijex Office Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. one lakh, I find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting the prayer for stay. 2. The case relates to import of second hand photocopiers. In the first round of litigation the goods were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,97,000/- and penalty of Rs. 38,000/- was imposed. This order was challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) who arrived at the margin of profit on the goods and remitted the case for fresh decision on the quantum of fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority extended the option of redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,70,000/-, both of which were challenged by the assessees before the lower appellate authority who, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble M...
M/S. Deco Textil Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
The authorities below have confiscated quilled made-ups entered for export by the appellants herein under DEPB, on the ground that they were not covered under Sl. No. 47C of the DEPB scheme, under the provisions of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, with option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and have imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the importers. The challenge in the present appeal is to the confiscation and penalty on the ground that since the goods in question are neither dutiable nor prohibited, the provisions of Section 113(i) are not attracted and consequently penalty under Section 114 is also not sustainable. 2. I have heard both sides. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants it is only with effect from 14.5.2003 that Section 113(i) covers any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other material particular with the entry made under this Act and prior to that date the section cov...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Hindusan Motors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
The issue in dispute namely available of credit on outdoor catering services in the factory of the manufacturer (respondents) stands decided against the Revenue by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468 which has been followed in M.M. Forgings Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy vide Final Order No. 549/2009 dated 15.5.2009 and CCE, Chennai Vs. M/s. Schneider Electric India (P) Ltd. - Final Order No. 196/2010 dated 16.2.2010. Although, the learned SDR draws the attention of the Bench to the fact that the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against the Larger Bench decision cited supra, he fairly states that the operation of the Tribunal’s order has not been stayed. Therefore, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, which has been relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals), I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Rajeshwari Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
The issue in dispute is as to whether cash refund of unutilized credit is admissible under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to a deemed exporter that is, to one who is supplying to a 100% EOU or whether cash refund of unutilized credit is admissible only in the case of actual / physical exports. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2007 (211) ELT 23 (Mad.) which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Quality Screens - 2008 (226) ELT 608. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....
M/S. the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
In this case the assessees paid cess on black tea and cleared the goods under ARE1s for export on payment of duty by following the procedure under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Claim for rebate of Rs.2,29,740/- was filed; Rs.2,22,420/- was sanctioned and paid to the appellants and balance amount was rejected as time-barred. It appeared that the rebate paid on excisable goods exported had to be sanctioned and paid in terms of Notification No. 19/04-CE and No. 21/04-CE. It appeared that the sanction and payment of rebate on tea cess was erroneous and cess on tea levied under Section 25 of Tea Act, 1953 was not one of the duties specified and listed in the above notifications. Hence a show-cause notice for recovery of the erroneous payment of rebate was issued along with the claim for interest. Erroneous rebate was ordered to be recovered by the adjudicating authority whose order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On hearing both sides I find that the...
Dr. S. Muralidharan Vs. Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal even at the admission stage.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 16.2.2010 communicated by the second respondent and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner as Chairman and Managing Director of the third respondent Company (Madras Fertilizers Limited) with pay and allowances and all attendant benefits from the date of termination i.e., from 16.2.2010 to till date of reinstatement.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a)The petitioner was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of the third respondent Company (a Public Sector Undertaking included in Schedule-B, Government of India) with effect from 23.7.2008 by order dated 21.7.2008. The petitioner was selected for by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). On 24.12.2008, the terms and conditions of his appointment were issued, accordin...
N. Gokula Krishnan Vs. S.A. Thirumani Nadar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 13.10.2009, made in the memo in the election original petition in O.P. No. 85 of 2008, on the file of the the learned Principal District Judge, Changalpattu.2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the fourth respondent in the Election petition in O.P. No. 85 of 2008, pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Changalpattu. The first respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition is the petitioner in the Election Original Petition in O.P. No. 85 of 2008. The Election Original Petition has been filed by the first respondent herein to set aside the declared result of ward No. III in the Cantonment Board Election, St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram 2008, as null and void and order the first respondent functioning under the second respondent to conduct immediate re-counting of votes polled for ward No. III in an unbiased and democratic way.3. The election orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »