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.
Tmt. S. Amutha Vs. the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The case of the petitioner is as follows:a) The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Ledger Assistant in the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Limited on 9.6.1981. She went on medical leave for a period of one month from 29.1.1990 to 28.2.1990. She got married on 7.2.1990 during the said period. At any rate, the sick leave applied for the period from 29.1.1990 to 28.2.1990 was sanctioned by the competent authority with half pay. The petitioner continued her sick leave from 1.3.1990 to 31.5.1990. Thereafter, she joined duty on 1.6.1990 and worked for a few days. She proceeded on medical leave thereafter. She delivered a baby on 23.11.1990 and she applied for maternity leave. The leave applications submitted by the petitioner were not rejected by the competent authority.b) The petitioner delivered a second child on 26.9.1992. She applied for maternity leave, but, the competent authority did not sanction the leave nor rejected her application praying for...
Reliance Industries Limited (Petroleum Division) Rep. by the President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 12.5.2009, made in I.A. No. 671 of 2008, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court, No. III), Dharapuram.2. The petitioners in the civil revision petition are the defendants in the suit, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Dharapuram, praying for a decree a) to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs), towards refund of security deposit, with 12% interest per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date of the payment of the said amount; b) to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20,921/- (Twenty thousand nine hundred and twenty one) towards balance of stock amount, with 12% interest per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date o...
Rajkumar and Vs. Mahesh Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Inasmuch as the issues arising for consideration in both these civil revision petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed.2. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P. No. 2541 of 2009, has been filed against the order, dated 30.6.2009, made in I.A. No. 1366 of 2009, in O.S. No. 603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P. No. 2542 of 2009, has been filed against the order, dated 30.6.2009, made in I.A. No. 1367 of 2009, in O.S. No. 603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.3. The petitioners in the present civil revision petitions are the defendants in the suit, in O.S. No. 603 of 2009, pending on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent herein had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree of permanent injunc...
Kuppusamy, Vs. the Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the Award and Decree, dated 23.09.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 497 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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 appellants/petitioners have filed the above appeal for additional compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and costs.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 11.01.2005, at about 09.00 a.m. when the deceased was standing in the mud portion of the road, near the bus stop Karaikadu, on Cuddalore to Vridhachalam road, a mini lorry bearing registration No. TN31 C8484 came from Kullanchavadi to Cuddalore at a great speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without sounding horn and dashed against...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Indian Furniture Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
The issue in dispute namely as to whether credit of service tax paid on services of Rent a Cab used for picking up and dropping staff from the residence to the factory premises stands decided against the Revenue by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 598, which has been followed in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II Vs. JK Cement Works - 2009 -TIOL- 411-CESTAT-DEL. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order by which the assessees have been held to be entitled to credit of Rs. 94,758/- together with interest and held not to be liable to penalty, and reject the appeal....
M/S. Sri Balaji Steels Vs. Cc, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
The only challenge in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, who has confiscated the goods described as heavy melting scrap but found to be re-rollable scrap and has rejected the declared value and loaded the value of the goods, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,10,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to the quantum of fine and penalty. 2. I have heard both sides. Since the assessees have not challenged either the finding that the goods are re-rollable scrap and have also not challenged the re-determination of the value, confiscation under Section 111 (m) is sustainable. Penalty under Section 112 (a) is also sustainable in the light of the mis-declaration of the goods and the undervaluation thereof. The assessable value of the goods is little over Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the quantum of fine and penalty which worked out to approximately 10% and 5% respectively of the value as found also does not call for any interference. ...
M/S. Best Cast It Ltd. Vs. Cc (imports), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
Electric bike and spare parts for electric motorcycles imported by the appellants under the Bill of Entry dated 27.11.2006 have been confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that the import was in violation of Import Licensing conditions as the importer was not in possession of the Registration Certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests as required under the Batteries (management and handling) Rules, 2001, and for the reason that the speedometer calibration was in miles/hr and not in km/hr, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 29,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under the provision of Section 112 ibid. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessees had raised the plea before the lower appellate authority that they were manufacturers of automobile components and the import was intended for their R and D purposes. However, the Commissioner (A) has held that t...
C. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. the General Manager (Administration) the Metro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. As the facts leading to all the writ petitions and the impugned order passed being the same, they are disposed of by this common order.The eight writ petitions are filed by four petitioners. W.P. Nos. 24663 to 24666 of 2005 have been filed challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of three increments for a period of three years while the other four writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 2203 t0 2206 of 2005 have been filed challenging the order of recovery passed by the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case is that when the petitioners were working as security guards, a special audit team of the respondent, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transport Corporation') caused audit of the High Speed Diesel Oil (hereinafter referred to as 'HSD Oil') accounts of the Tondiarpet Depot-I for the period December, 1999 to 30th Sept., 2001. The audit reports revealed lot of discrepancies in maintaining various registers in the depot and i...
Alarmelu Mangai Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Pub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam, learned Counsel for Mr. M. Gnanalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for first respondent, Mr. Gopi Krishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Amicus curiae counsel for the court.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the wrongs committed by the respondents. Pending the writ petition, she has also sought for restraining the third respondent and his men from forcibly evicting her from quarters No. 1124, Special E Block, Type 1, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. The writ petition was admitted on 26.5.2004. In the application regarding quarters, an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order, dated 11.3.2005, the injunction application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus stan...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajaji Salai, Karur and United India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7 has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 25.09.2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 93/1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Court, Dharmapuri.2. The Claims Tribunal viz., the Sub Court, Dharmapuri had passed an Award in the Claim Petition filed by the First Respondent/Claimant directing the Respondents 2, 3/Respondents 1, 2 and the First Appellant/Third Respondent to pay 50% of the Award amount of Rs. 19,97,385/- and also the Respondents 4, 5 and the Second Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the balance of 50% of the Award amount of Rs. 19,97,385/- jointly and severally together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation without costs and dismissed the claim against the Sixth Respondent, etc.,3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the First Respondent/Claimant, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P26 were marked. On the side...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »