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.
A. Seranthiya Pillai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Even though the interim application alone is listed before me, by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Challenging the order of the third respondent dated 13.08.2009 and to direct the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light G.O. (Ms) 10 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dt.13.2.2009 and appoint him on compassionate grounds in Government service, the present writ petition has been filed.3. The writ petitioner's father was working as a Police Constable for 30 years. While he was working in the Armed Reserve Police Force, Tiruchirappalli, he passed away on 26.03.2000 leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters. Out of them, the petitioner is the eldest son. It is seen that the application made by one of his brothers viz., A. Dharmaraj and the subsequent application made by the wife of the deceased came to be rejected on the ground that the deceased has cro...
The Management of Arasoor Primary Agrl. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first two writ petitions were filed by the Management of Arasur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. The third writ petition was filed by the contesting respondent, who is an employee of the Bank.2. In the first writ petition, the challenge was to the order, dated 28.3.2001 made in TSE Case No. II.13/2001 passed by the first respondent, appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. By the said order, the first respondent being the appellate authority set aside the dismissal made against the second respondent workman, dated 09.10.1999. The said writ petition was admitted on 24.7.2002. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. The contesting respondent filed a vacate stay application. The stay application as well as vacate stay application were heard together and were disposed of by this Court on 28.8.2003. This Court held that since the petitioner Bank was not interested in paying any amount and also arrears...
M. Muthambika Vs. the Chairman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The short point raised in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioner was removed from service by the second respondent, by an order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority who was also a member in the Appellate board. Therefore, the impugned appellate order confirming the order passed by the original authority cannot stand the test of scrutiny of this Court. Similar matter has already been considered by this Court in W.P. No. 2296 of 2005 dated 17.06.2009, wherein this Court has held that if the disciplinary authority who has dealt with and imposed the punishment of removal from service, has become a member of the Board hearing the appeal, then there is always a likelihood of the bias against the petitioner.2. It is an accepted principle of natural justice that a person should not be a judge in his or her own cause. In common law, this principle ha been derived from the Latin maxim - 'nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa'. A reasonable permutation...
Poongodi, Vs. Tirupurasundari and Ramesh Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. Since the Second Appeal Nos. 440 of 2010 and 441 of 2010 have been filed against the decrees passed in two suits by a common judgment of the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Judge by separate judgments and since the issues involved in both the cases are interlinked, both the second appeals are taken up for joint hearing regarding admission.2. The submissions made by Mr. K.S. Jeyaganeshan, learned Counsel for the appellants were heard. The material papers placed before the Court in the form of typed-set of papers including the copies of the judgments of the Courts below and the memoranda of appeal were perused.3. The property described as suit property in O.S. No. 82 of 2006 is a larger one and the property described in O.S. No. 104 of 2006 is a part of the said property. Therefore, for the sake of convenience it is claried that the term 'suit property' shall refer to the property described in the schedule of the plaint in O.S. No. 82 of 2006...
M/S.Paramount Electroplating Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The above appeal has been coming up for hearing from time to time. Notice for today’s hearing has been issued to the appellants. However, there is no representation from them. Hence this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Babu Ram Choudhary Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The appellant herein is the proprietor of M/s.M.J. Fabrics. The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the proprietary concern as well on its proprietor, which is not admissible in law, as the proprietor and the concern are one in the eye of law. I, therefore, set aside the penalty on the appellant herein. In the absence of any appeal by the proprietary concern, I am not required to record any finding on the sustainability or otherwise of the penalty imposed on M/s.M/J. Fabrics. 2. The above appeal is allowed....
M/S.Coimbatore Super Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty, I found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides. 2. Exemption from payment of service tax has been denied on the ground that the transporters whose services were availed by the assessees did not file declarations to the effect that they had not availed CENVAT credit or the benefit of Notification No.32/2004.The submission of the assessees is that some of the transporters are only individual truck/lorry operators and hence not liable to tax, and the further submission is that other transporters have since filed the requisite declarations. He, therefore, prays that the case be remitted to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the above submissions. 3. Learned SDR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. 4. Since copies of the declarations of the transporters have now ...
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/S.Peregrine Security P. Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the imposition of only 25% of penalty on the respondents herein who paid part of the service tax prior to the issue of the show-cause notice and the balance tax along with interest prior to adjudication, on the ground that mandatory penalty of amount equal to the tax payable was required to be imposed. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon CBEC Circular dated 03.10.2007, which was followed by the Tribunal in AK and I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore [2008 (12) S.T.R.315 (Tri.-Bang.)] to conclude that payment of 25% of the penalty was sufficient. Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S.Rajyalakshmi Machine Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The assessees herein failed to pay cess due on clearances effected during the months of May and June, 2007 beyond a period of 30 days from the due date. The removals, therefore, were deemed to have been made without payment of duty and hence a show-cause notice was issued proposing recovery of duty (Education Cess) and proposing imposition of penalty. The demand of Rs.3,54,252/- was confirmed together with interest and a penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the assessees; hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The submission of the assessees that demand cannot be raised and confirmed under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for delay in payment of cess, as Rule 2 (e) defines duty duty payable under Section 3 of the Act, while education cess is payable not under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, but under Section 91 of the Finance Act, 1994, is well-founded. Although Section 93 of the Finance Act, 2004 sets out that education cess levied under Section 91 shall be a dut...
M/S.Hex Cargo Mover (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The assessees herein paid service tax prior to the issue of show-cause notice and subsequently they have also paid interest. The issue in dispute in the appeal is as to whether they are liable to penalty. 2. I have heard both sides. I agree with the assessees that penalty cannot be sustained in the light of the Tribunal’s orders in Santhi Casting Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2009 (15) S.T.R.219 (Tri.-Chennai)], M/s.U.B. Engineering Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2009 TIOL 1192 CESTAT AHM] which has been followed in M/s.Volpak Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service tax, Ahmedabad [2010 TIOL 534 CESTAT AHM] considering the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to penalty, and allow the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »