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.
P. Pandian Sunderrajan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police Cb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 28 of 2003, on the file of the XI Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and he is facing trial for offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court, seeking discharge on the ground that the sanction for prosecution against the accused was given by the incompetent authority and as such the sanction was invalid. The petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had preferred this criminal revision petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Chief Commercial Clerk in Southern Railway and the competent authority is only the General Manager, Southern Railway and the sanction is accorded only by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager who is the competent au...
D. Natesan Pillai Vs. S. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the proceedings of the Scheme Judge (Subordinate Judge), Thiruvarur, dated 22.4.2009, in so far as it relates to the appointment of the respondent, as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Anbanathapuram Vahaiyara Charities Trust, Thirunindalur, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District, under the general category.2. The above civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the fair and decretal order of the Scheme Judge (Subordinate Judge), Thiruvarur, dated 22.4.2009, rejecting the application of the petitioner for his appointment, as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Anbanathapuram Vahaiyara Charities Trust, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust').3. The petitioner has stated that the Trust is running many educational institutions, for the past several decades, which are reputed institutions, in the field of education, in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Trust is being managed, as ...
P. Chellachamy Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as a Forest Watcher, has given room for issuance of a charge memo with the following 4 charges.(i) failed to prevent felling of trees at Kumuli beat, at Coodalur Range and not registered any case.(ii) failed to report in the diary and hide till the Special Squad found such fellings and thereby assisted the offenders.(iii) failed to report such events to higher officials.(iv) dereliction of duty and thereby caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs. 33,000/-.After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the allegations. The 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority, having been not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, ordered for enquiry. The enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities to the petitioner as well the respondents, completed the enquiry and submitted his report, holding that the petitioner was found guilty of all the 4 charges levelled against him. Bas...
A. Venkatesan Vs. the Ex Officio Secretary to Government, Co-operatati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records insofar as it relates to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/the Ex officio Secretary to Government in his proceedings No. G.O. Ms. No. 88, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (J1) Department, dated 19.03.2004, and to quash the same insofar as it relates to confiscation of 25 bags of boiled rice and consequently to disburse the market value of 155 bags of boiled rice.2. The petitioner is a licensed trader to deal with paddy and rice and he has also been running rice mill in the name and style of 'Aruna Lakshmi Rice Mill' at Dindukal for several years. After receiving the order for purchase of 320 bags of boiled rice from another license trader of Jothi Stores, Erumadu, the petitioner sold 320 bags of boiled rice and by issuing valid bill Nos. 6 & 7, dated 02.07.1996, the same was transported in two lorries...
T.A. Bhansali and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police District Crime Bran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 in case pending in C.C. No. 177 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, Nilgiris (Dt.). The petitioners seek quash of proceedings in such case as against them. The case in C.C. No. 177 of 1999 is a complaint case wherein the Provident Fund Inspector alleges commission of offences under Section 14(1A)/14A and 14AA of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952. The accusation is that the establishment by name M/s. Mahavir Plantations having collected employees' contribution of provident fund and family pension funds had failed to remit such amount as also the Employer's contribution to the provident fund account, as it is required to do under Sections 6 & 6A r/w Paragraphs 30 & 33 of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Funds Scheme. The default was of the period July 1995 to September 1995 and to the tune of Rs. 91,922/-. The complaint alleges that all the eight a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.K. Khosla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The appellant/revenue has filed the above Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.04.2007 in ITA. No. 1862/Mds/2004. 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 09.03.2010, this Court admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 22 lakhs paid by the employer to the assessee is not profits in lieu of salary?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 22 lakhs paid by the employer to the assessee would not fall under Section 17(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act?3. Whether the definition of the profits in lieu of salary given under Section 17(3) is an exhaustive definition or only illustrative?4. Whether Section 17(3)(iii) is an explanation which would have retrospective effect or not?5. Whether any lump sum a...
K. Murugesan Vs. Rajalakshmi and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Today, when these Civil Revision Petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw these Civil Revision Petitions. 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, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
S.S.i.Media India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
The appellants challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that they, as a private limited company, are liable to pay service tax for services rendered by the partnership firm M/s.SS International prior to it being incorporated as a private limited company and the demand of interest and imposition of penalty. 2. I have heard both sides and find that there is nothing on record to support the case of the department that it is M/s.S.S International (Partnership firm) which is incorporated as S.S.I. Media India Ltd., the appellants herein. The appellants have been able to show with reference to certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name, issued by the Registrar of Companies and the Memorandum and Articles of Association that it is S.S.I. Media India (Unlimited) which was changed to S.S.I Media India Pvt. Ltd. I, therefore, accept the contention of the assessees that they are not liable to pay any service tax leviable against M/s. S.S. International, and allow...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Indo Shell Cast (P) Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
The issue in dispute in the present appeal, namely, as to whether there can be a demand for interest on delayed payment of differential duty on account of price variation stands settled against the respondents herein by the apex court’s decision in the case of CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd., [2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC)]. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal holding that the assessees be held to be liable to pay interest....
Mohammed Umar @ Mohammed Salim and Ahmed Mera Thambi @ Meeran @ Sekar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2010
S. Nagamuthu, J.1. The appellants are accused 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 73 of 2001 on the file of the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, 1985, Chennai. By judgment dated 27.5.2008, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows:A1 is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 as amended by Act, 9/01 and A2 is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 as amended by Act, 9 of 2001. A3 and A4 are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act and A5 and A6 are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act as amended by Act, 9/01 and they are convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigourous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 Lakh for each offence, in default, to undergo one year R.I. for each offence. (Total fine imposed on A1 is Rupees Four Lakhs. A2 is Rupees Six Lakhs, A3 and A4 - Ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »