Chennai Court June 2010 Judgments
S.S.Viswanathan ... Vs. District Revenue Officer (Stamps), and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. The petitioner and his wife are the absolute owners of Flat No.B1,Door No.21/B1, Malaviya Avenue, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai and they purchased the same by virtue of a sale deed, dated 18.11.2002, and registered as Doc.No.5421 of 2002 with the second respondent.2. According to petitioner, he paid stamp duty required as per the Rules. The sale consideration was Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of registration, the petitioner was not able to get stamps for the value of Rs.1,95,000/-. Therefore, the sale deed was engrossed in the stamps of the value of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was remitted with the second respondent and due endorsement was also made in the Instrument under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short "the Act").3. While so, the second respondent issued a notice dated 03.04.2008, calling the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.37,570/- towards deficit in stamp duty and corresponding registration charges of Rs.2890/- totaling in all a sum of Rs.40,460/- an...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.G.Prasannalatha ... Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. The petitioner's husband was employed as an Office Assistant in the Commercial Taxes Department from 20.10.1982. He died on 07.05.2005, while he was in service. Had he been alive, he could serve up to 31.10.2015. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife and there are two sons to the petitioner born through the deceased government servant. On his death, the respondent-Department paid Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner towards funeral expenses. Thereafter the petitioner was granted Rs.95,000/- towards DCRG on 30.09.2005. She was also granted G.P.F. amount of Rs.23,781/- on 02.02.2006.2. On 22.08.2006, the petitioner applied for family pension and also for compassionate appointment for her elder son. It is stated that she went to Commercial Taxes Department in person on many occasions and requested for sanction of monthly family pension and also for compassionate appointment for her elder son. She also made a representation on 24.09.2009 to the first respondent, in this regard for sanction ...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai ... Vs. Govindan (Died), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. The Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of Plaintiff's Temple has filed this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1991 in A.S.No.79 of 1981 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore.2.The Learned First Appellate Authority viz., the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore in the Judgment in A.S.No.79 of 1991 dated 26.06.1991 has among other things observed that 'the Appellant/Hereditary Trustee has failed to prove that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiff's Temple and further, the Plaintiff Temple also failed to prove that the Defendants have default in regard to the payment of rent and added further, it has held that the Defendants have acquired adverse possession by virtue of long enjoyment in the suit property and also has come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the Plaintiff/Temple is not entitled to get the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits and ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs.'3. The trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!M.Rukmani .. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Civil Supplies and Consume ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus for forbearing the respondents herein from discontinuing the supply of food articles to the Family Card bearing No.01/G/0068677 standing in the name of the petitioner's husband.3. The petitioner herein, got married to one Manoharan and while they were living together, the Family Card was obtained in the name of her husband as head of the family. Her name is included in the same in the capacity of wife of the said Manoharan and there was no difficulty in getting the supply of food articles in the said Family Card, till the matrimonial dispute arose between the husband and wife resulting in Civil Suit in O.S. No. 5482 of 2006. Even after the separation of the husband and wife, the petitioner was getting the supply of food articles for the same Family Card. The petitioner has during the pendency of the Civil Suit, shifted her residence to V.P. Colony, North Street ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.Subbulakshmi .. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank Represented by Its Manage ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. Both the civil revision petition and the writ petition relate to the common cause between the same parties. Hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.(NPD) No.1819 of 2010:The civil revision petition arises under the following circumstances. A company by name M/s Gremach Tea & Estates Limited, Chennai availed a sum of Rs.7,65,00,000 as Bridge Loan from the first respondent-Punjab & Sind Bank during the year 1995. The loan amount carried interest at the rate of 16% per annum compounded at quarterly rest or any other rate that may be fixed by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. 25 lakhs of equity shares were pledged as security for the said loan. The petitioner and her husband by name K.S.Shriram stood as guarantors in their individual capacity for the liability of the company, as both were the Directors of the company. Several loan documents were executed. As the debt was not settled in full, the first respondent-bank filed O.A.No.1312 of 1998 ...
Tag this Judgment!Classic Welding Products (P) Ltd., Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to finalise the tender for multilayer Poly End Film for the year 2010-2012, without considering the petitioner in the Part-II Commercial Bid and to consequently direct the respondents to issue the tender in favour of the successful tenderer among the eligible tenderers including the petitioner.3. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration are as follows:The petitioner is manufacturing and supplying of HM/HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, Co-extrusion Polythene with and without Printing Bags, Sheets, Rolls, Liners, Pouches, Guzetted Bags, Shirk Film, Strih Film and Cling Film etc., having its units at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Hosur and Sriperumputhur. While, the Hosur Unit indulges in manufacturing and supplying of the items above referred to except co-extruder multi layer Poly End Film, since 1995. The Sriperumputhur Unit indu...
Tag this Judgment!R.Amudha ... Vs. the Secretary to Government Commercial Tax Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. The petitioner was initially employed as part-time sweeper from 02.11.1997 and the wages were paid at the rate of Rs.9/- per day from the Contingencies, by the Third respondent Tribunal. Later, the Tribunal sought permission of the Government for appointment of one full-time scavenger for the purpose of maintenance of Court Halls, Chambers, Office and Toilets, etc., to keep clean and in hygienic condition. Accordingly, the Government permitted the third respondent Tribunal to employ one full-time scavenger, by its letter dated 02.08.2000, against one sanctioned post on daily wage basis at the rate fixed by the Collector, Chennai, from time to time till regular appointment is made. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as full-time scavenger from 14.08.2000.2. While so, the Government sanctioned one post of sweeper in the scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. The third respondent, by an order dated 03.04.2001, appointed the petitioner herein as sweeper in the aforesaid scale.3...
Tag this Judgment!T.Selvi, and ors. Vs. M/S.Margadarsi Chit Pvt.Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 10.09.2009 made in E.P.No.2246 of 2008 in ARC No.983 of 2007 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The first respondent herein obtained the award dated 22.05.2008 for recovery of money as against five persons,viz., R2 herein and the revision petitioners 1 to 4. Thereafter E.P.No.2246 of 2008 was filed for attaching the salary of those Judgment Debtors. Notice was ordered by the Executing Court even though no notice was contemplated as per Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, in view of the award sought to be executed was within two years, yet, in the interest of justice, the Executing court ordered notice. Whereupon one and the same counsel appeared for all the five Judgment Debtors on 22.01.2009 and he took time for counter/payment. Subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpammal .... Vs. Jayavelu Gounder(Died), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, in I.A.No.907 of 2008 in O.S.No.644 of 1992, condoning the delay of 708 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application to get the ex-parte decree set aside as per O.9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., this civil revision petition is focussed at the instance of the plaintiff.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No644 of 1992 seeking the following reliefs:(a) to declare the plaintiff's title to the schedule mentioned property.(b) to direct the defendant to deliver peaceful possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs and in their default through the process of this Court; (c) Order an enquiry for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C." (extracted as such)(ii) Whereupon written statement was filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ltu Chennai Vs. M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
The issue in dispute in this appeal is whether the assessees are required to pay interest on inadmissible credit which was availed but not utilized. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the apex Court’s decision in Commissioner Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT A50 (SC) upholding the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2007 (214) ELT 173 (PandH). The Tribunal has also followed the apex Court judgment cited supra in the case of Technova Imaging Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad 2009 (246) ELT 230, Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2009 (245) ELT 533, CCE, Chennai Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 2009 (248) ELT 821CCE and Pondicherry Vs. Superfil Products 2009-TIOL-428. The decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India Vs. Kennametal Widia India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 433 (Kar.) relied upon by the Revenue to contend that interest is required to be paid even if credit was avail...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »