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.
R. Sadasivam ... Vs. Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Warden Office, and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment passed by the first respondent dated 19.4.2004 confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 14.12.2004 and direct the first respondent to pay the petitioner's arrears of salary of Rs.91,135/- accrued up to November, 2006 and the monthly salary at the rate of Rs.12,165/- from December, 2006 onwards.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner is employed in Guindy Children's Park as Driver. While he was working in the Headquarters Wildlife Range, Velacherry, Chennai-32, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 23.10.2003 pending contemplation of enquiry into grave charges. (b) The said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.1340 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The original application was disposed of with direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and e...
Smt.Geethalakshmi, .. Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
1. These two Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed against the preventive detention orders passed by the first respondent in respect of the detenus P.Hameed Mustaq and S.Tamilselvam @ Kumar respectively under section 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The former was detained on the subjective satisfaction of the first respondent that he had abetted smuggling of Ketamine by the latter and the latter was detained as he had attempted to smuggle Ketamine out of India and that it was necessary to detain them with a view to prevent the former from abetting smuggling of goods and the latter from smuggling of goods. Smt.Geethalakshmi, wife of the detenu Hameed Mustaq is the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1303/2009. Suresh, the brother of the detenu S.Tamilselvam @ Kumar is the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1306/2009.2. Hameed Mustaq, the detenu concerned in H.C.P.No.1303/2009 was arrested on 02.05.2009 under arrest m...
Cce, Chennai and Others Vs. Sundaram Brake Linings and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
BRIEF FACTS These 13 cases were heard together as a common issue is involved in all these cases. The respondents in these cases have claimed credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service claiming the same to be input service used in or in relation to various manufactured excisable goods. The following table showing the list of manufactured excisable goods has been prepared on the basis of submissions made by the learned advocates for the respondents and the learned SDR appearing for the Department. TABLE S. No. Appeal No. Input Service Finished Excisable Goods 01. E/87/2009 and E/CO/16/2009 Outdoor catering Brake lining, clutch facing, disc brake 02. E/88/2009 Outdoor catering Motor vehicle parts 03. E/41/2009 Outdoor catering Piston rings 04. E/42/2009 Outdoor catering Motor vehicle parts 05. E/56/2009 Outdoor catering Bulk drug and derivatives 06. E/57/2009 Outdoor catering Flywheel, magnet assembly, regulatory assembly 07. E/89/2009 Outdoor catering Tyrecord fabrics 08....
M/S. Karur Kcp Packagings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
Heard both sides. Shri Ramesh Anandan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants challenges the impugned Order in Appeal mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he states that out of the entire amount of Rs.99,439/- involved in this appeal, an amount of Rs. 40,774/- relates to denial of credit not accepting debit notes but the lower appellate authority has not dealt with this issue at all. Secondly, he states that the lower appellate authority has held the Board’s Circular dated 23.08.07 to be only prospective in its application whereas, there is no reason to consider the circular to be only prospective when it is clarifying the position of law as it existed from the beginning. 2. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri C. Rangaraju. He fairly agrees that the lower appellate authority has not dealt with the issue relating to credit in respect of debit notes and as such he has no objection to the remand of the case to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision. As regards the remaining portion i...
Shri G. Yesupadam Versus Madras Engineer Group and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who had filed the W.P.No.8552 of 2004 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming Family Pension for his deceased mother. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, as per the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and reassigned T.A.No.62 of 2010. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order in Letter No.1397449/Pen(f)/109 dated 23.02.2004 emanated from the first respondent. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition relevant for deciding this case are as follows:- The petitioners father Late Shri G.Ayyanna worked as Sapper (No.1397449) in the 13 Engineer Regiment and he died on 10.04.1987 while in service. The petitioners mother Smt.G.Yellamma had applied for payment of Family Pension. But the respondents have rejected the claim. Thereafter, the petitioners mother had approached th...
N.A.Kumar, and anr. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Jha the Chief Executive Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
1. This petition is filed for punishing the respondent for having disobeyed the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18514 of 1998 dated 08.07.2008.2. Notice was directed to be issued to the learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry). Further notice was also ordered to the respondent to appear before this Court on 12.11.2009. The respondent also appeared and his presence was dispensed with.3. Today when the matter came up, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) states that the matter has been taken on Appeal being W.A.No.350 of 2010 and it is seized by a Division Bench. They have also filed a stay application along with the writ appeal and arguments over there were were being heard.4. When an order is appealed against and the higher forum is seized of the matter it is not proper for this Court to proceed with the contempt to deprive the right of the respondents to question the order of this Court. In this context, it is necessary to refer to two decisions of t...
K.Saraswathi .. Vs. M.Killivalavan ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2009, from the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2009 filed by the respondent is a vexatious litigation filed with the sole intention of harassing the petitioner. The petition had been filed by the respondent by producing a fabricated bogus marriage certificate and to obtain an order of restitution of conjugal rights, by fraudulent means. It has been stated that the petitioner was never married to the respondent. In fact, on 17.9.2008, the petitioner was forcibly taken to an office at Avadi and she was made to sign some applications in the guise of getting employment in an office. Thereafter, she came to know that her signature had been obtained for registration of her marriage with the respondent at the Registration Office at Avadi.3. It had also been stated that her representations to the Sub Registrar, Avadi, for cancellation of the...
Mary Alias Meharunnisa .. and ors. Vs. State Represented by the Inspec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.405 of 2005, Crl.A.No.1019 of 2005 and Crl.A.No.616 of 2005 are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.169 of 2003, on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and they all stand convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985, and they are sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence all the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals. 2.The prosecution case in brief is as follows:P.W.1 who is the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID, was on duty on 07.02.2003 and at about 7.45a.m, he received an information that three persons by name Mary, Mohammad Yusuf and Prakash were to come near Dr. Ambedkar Government Arts College, Vyasarpadi to sell heroin between 9.30a.m and 1.15p.m. P.W.1 recorded the said information in Ex.P.1 and placed it ...
M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Heard both sides. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have been denied credit of 4% additional customs duty paid on the input received by them from an EOU, which enjoys exemption from sales tax and hence has paid the subject additional duty of customs. He states that the case of the appellants is covered by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- 1. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-2008 (225) ELT 513 (Tri.-Mum.) 2. Shreya Pets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-IV-2009 (240) ELT 408 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. Heard the Ld. SDR, who supports the impugned order. 3. In view of the fact that prima facie the appellant’s case is covered by the cited decisions of the Tribunal, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived during the pendency of the appeal....
Himachal Exim Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
The applicants seek to explain the delay of 35 days in filing the above appeals against the impugned order directing testing of the seized imported toys on the ground that subsequent to the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the re-testing did not take place immediately and due to the delay on the part of the authorities to carry out the re-testing, they approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court which vide its order dt. 3.2.2010 in W.P.No.1866/2010 disposed of the case with a direction to the Additional Commissioner of Customs to implement the operative portion of the impugned order by sending the samples and passing appropriate orders within three weeks. The department then called upon the applicants to pay additional fees for the purpose of re-testing. Since the fee was found to be excessive, the applicants decided to challenge the remand order. This explanation is in no way sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay as if the fee had been found to be reasonable,...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »