Chennai Court June 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.
K. Devarajan, and anr. Vs. the Commissioner Hr and Ce Admn. Dept., and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 70(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.175 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore are the appellants herein. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Chennai, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Vellore Town, who figured as the defendants in the original suit are the respondents herein.2. The appellants herein are the sons of Late B.D.Sundararasa Pattachariar. The said Sundararasa Pattachariar moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for recognizing him to be the founder-cum-hereditary trustee of the suit temple by name Sri Veera Anjaneyar Temple situated within...
Ponnusamy, and ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1. The petitioners states that one Mr.Muthusamy Gounder owned lands in S.No.360/4 measuring 0.13.5 Ares and in S.No.360/10 measuring 0.17.0 Ares in Karuveppampatti, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, which was his ancestral property. The fourth respondent in the present writ petition purchased the said property from the said Mr.Muthusamy Gounder and his legal heirs on 25.10.2002 under the registered sale deed No.3113/2002 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruchengode. The patta in respect of S.No.360/4 was issued in the name of Mr.Muthusamy Gounder under patta No.365. 2.It seems that the father of the first and second petitioners by name Mr.Chettiya Gounder and the father of the third and fourth petitioners by name Mr.Ponnali Gounder purchased property in S.No.360/4 on 09.03.1967 from the legal heirs of one Mr.Ramasamy. Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder also purchased other properties. In the year 1995, the said Mr.Chettiya Gounder and Mr.Ponnali Gounder requested the thi...
P.Narayanaswamy ... Vs. Sri Addepalli Kandaswamy Chetty and Chenchu Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.P.No.31 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: a. The learned Principal Judge, Chennai vide order dated 30.04.2008 in O.P.No.31 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein passed orders. The prayer in the said petition would run thus: - to pass an appropriate direction permitting the schedule mentioned property under this petition to vest with the society in the name and style of M/s.Addepalli Kandaswamy Chetty and Chenchu Venkatesubhu Guruvajamma Charities Association for carrying on the objects of the erstwhile trust, and the operative portion of the order would run thus:"In the result, this petition is allowed and permission is granted to vest the petition mentioned property with the society in the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs. M/S. Sas and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the assessees are entitled to credit of service tax paid on their behalf by M/s. SAS and Company to M/s. Surya T.V. (media) for advertising their product “SAS paper leaf”. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that in the relevant invoices not only has the product of the assessees been shown as advertised but the assessees are shown as advertisers. Since the service provided is in relation to advertisement for sales promotion of the assessees’ products, the lower appellate authority has rightly held that the assessees are entitled to credit of service tax. I, therefore, uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals....
M/S. Vairava Textiles Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbato ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1. The allegation of the department against the assessees herein was that they had availed simultaneously benefit of CENVAT credit of capital goods as well as depreciation on the same goods under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The charges in the show-cause notice dated 07.04.2005 were upheld and a demand of Rs.44,277/- + Rs.3,60,480/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed upon the assessees. In addition a personal penalty of Rs.4,04,151/- was imposed on the Managing Director of the company. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director and, while accepting the claim of the assessees that the goods on which credit was claimed were only spares, remitted the case for verification of the description of the goods involved and the details of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. He also remitted the case relating to value adopted for goods cleared on job work basis. The assessees challenge demand on the ground that t...
G. Sitaram, (Ex. Sergeant, Indian Air Force) Versus Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, an Ex sergeant in the Indian Air Force, had challenged the impugned order of the Second Respondent in Air HQ/41002/577/M/PA(CC), dated 05.02.2004, signed by Air Vice Marshal, ACAS (PA and C) for and on behalf of the Second Respondent, as illegal and also to settle the petitioners claim in lieu of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence order dated 31.10.1990, by way of filing W.P.No.5536 of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which has, after the formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, after passing of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, been transferred to this Tribunal and reassigned T.A.No.6 of 2010. 2. The facts in brief as narrated in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner was discharged from service as Sergeant on 31.05.1991 after he had put in 29 years of dedic...
Anjaneyulu Tammisetty Versus the Commandant Officer and Another
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The case before the Tribunal is of the petitioner seeking reinstatement into service, contesting his discharge on medical grounds. The petition bearing WP No.13666 of 2001 in the Honble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, on transfer to this Tribunal in accordance with the passing of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, has been re-numbered as TA No.58 of 2009. 2. The short facts of the case for examination of the petition are set out as follows: 2(a) The petitioner was enrolled into the Madras Engineering Group and Centre at Bangalore on 07.09.2000 after due qualification in the written test as also the medical examination on 09.05.2000. The petitioner, while undergoing training, was sent to Secunderabad for medical examination where the petitioner was detected to be having alternate divergent squint and recommended for invalidment on medical grounds. The petitioner was, thereafter, discharged w.e.f. 3...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For the reasons recorded below, we grant stay of operation of the impugned order and then proceed to deal with the appeal itself for final disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. The adjudicating authority had granted refund of Rs.1.30 crores to the assessees herein against which the Revenue went up in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the grounds of appeal of the Revenue have been drafted subsequent to review order and the grounds of appeal did not exist at that time and this shows that the review order has been mechanically issued without any application of mind. 3. The learned SDR has been able to satisfy us with reference to the note sheet that the grounds of appeal were very much available when the review order was passed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect. Therefore, the ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case against the Rev...
M.P.Venkatachalam, and anr. Vs. Govindan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
1. The defendants are the petitioners herein. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in I.A.No. 158 of 2005 in O.S.No. 86 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, dated 31.08.20052. The defendants filed I.A.No.158 of 2005 in O.A.No.86 of 2003 to implead one Tmt. Govindammal wife of Govindan and Thangammal wife of Kolandai Gounder as defendants to the Suit and this Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the Court below, as against which the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed.3. According to the Revision Petitioners the plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an agricultural land comprised in Survey No.423/2A, Kambapatti Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, measuring an extent of 1.80 acres. The plaintiff in paragraph No.4 of the Plaint has avered as to the manner in which he has acquired title over the Suit Property. The claim of the plaintiff was res...
Ennore Port Limited, Vs. Hcc Van Oord Acz Joint Venture, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
1. This Original Suit Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the award in so far as the Item Nos. I to IV in para 13.0 of the award is concerned and setting aside the award in so far as the Item Nos. V to VIII in para 13.0 are concerned and is restricted only to the rate of interest awarded and future interest.2. The Tribunal made the following award :"13.0 AWARD OF TRIBUNAL :Under the circumstances and considering all arguments by both the parties and on the basis of the conclusions as stated above, the Tribunal finds that Section 5 relating to whole of the works substantially completed on 01.06.2001. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal on Claim No.6 is as under: i. Claimant is entitled for the Taking Over Certificate for whole of the work i.e. Section 5 with effect from 01.06.2001. Accordingly, the date of taking over certificate shall be 01.06.2001.ii. Respondent shall pay to Claimant the retention money and also release the Retention money ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »