Chennai Court May 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.
Alkraft thermotechnologies P. Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 12.5.2010.2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is a continuous process industry engaged in the manufacture of inter coolers, radiators and oil coolers, having High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T.S.C. No. 1488 within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 2378 of 2010, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respo...
J.M. Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. by the Director Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 07.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of spinning having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner by letter dated 07.5.2010 to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 11/2008 to 07/2009. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in...
international Bakery Products Limited Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 12.05.2010,2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the manufacture of bakery products within the area jurisdiction of the second respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 26473 of 2009, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,58,312/- towards evening peak hour quota excess consump...
Bharani Cotton Mills Rep. by Managing Partner Vs. Tamil Nadu Electrici ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 07.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of spinning having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner by letter dated 07.5.2010 to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 11/2008 to 07/2009. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in...
Kamakshi Lamipack Private Limited Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 12.05.2010,2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the manufacturing of flexible packaging materials within the area jurisdiction of the second respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 22457 of 2009, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 16,70,194/- towards evening peak hour quota...
Ambattur Clothing Limited Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Chairman, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 12.5.2010.2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is involved in the manufacture of garments, having High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T.S.C. No. 1745 within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1973 of 2010, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,21,973/- ...
Kwality Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Administrative Director M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 10.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of manufacturing textile yarn having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 12/2008 to 08/2009 and hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in Para...
C.R. Textiles Mills Rep. by Its Manager K. Thiagarajan Vs. Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 15.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of manufacturing textile yarn having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in Para 29 of the earlier order made in M.P. No. 42 ...
Visteon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Heard both sides. The demand of service tax of Rs.62,35,745/- together with interest confirmed against the appellants herein during the period March 00 to Sept-02 who had entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s.Halla Climate Control (hereinafter referred to as HCC), a South Korean company, for utilization of technical information provided by HCC for manufacturing licensed products and for which they appellants paid an amount of 5% of the net invoice value of each such licensed product sold within India, is not sustainable, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.)] holding that service tax liability on services provided by foreign service provider arises only w.e.f. 18.4.2006, the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court s decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble apex court as seen from 2009-TIOL-1...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. M/S.State Bank of India, K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
Learned SDR files a copy of the letter received by him from the CBEC that the Board has decided not to refer the case to Committee on Disputes (CoD) due to the small amount involved. Since CoD clearance is required as the respondent is State Bank of India, in view of the communication referred to herein above, the appeal is dismissed as it cannot be pursued in the absence of clearance....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »