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.
M/S. Jaihind Roadways Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M/S.Hindustan Motors Limited, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. M/s. Jaihind Roadways Pvt. Ltd., which figured as the defendant in O.S.No.3409 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-V, Chennai has come forward with the present appeal against the decree of the said Court dated 30.04.2002 made in the above said original suit. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the original suit are the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. 2.The averments found in the plaint filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs in brief are as follows:-Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are public limited companies. The defendant / respondent is a private limited company and a common carrier for reward. The first appellant/first plaintiff purchased carbon steel castings of different specifications and low alloy steel castings from M/s. Steel Cast Limited, Bhavnagar under five invoices dated 28.05.1996. The particulars of the same are as follows:- SL.No Invoice No. & Date Amount1. 221/28.05.96 Rs.4,08,085.602. 222/28.05.96 Rs. 76,845.603. 223/28.05.96 ...
Universal Abrasives and Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The challenge in this appeal is to the enhancement of unit price of 60mm concrete paving blocks imported by the appellants under the Bills of Entry dt. 1.6.000, 6.6.2000 and 31.7.2000 to DHS 0.35 per piece, rejecting the declared value of 0.05 DHS per piece, determining the assessable value at Rs.5,60,762/-, Rs.6,30,463/- and Rs.9,20,107/ respectively and confirming differential duty demand of Rs.2,45,373/- and Rs.2,77,690/- respectively on goods covered by the first two Bills of Entry, together with interest @ 20% per annum, confiscation of goods covered under the Bill of Entry of June 2000 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, absolute confiscation of goods covered by the third Bill of Entry as the importers had abandoned the goods, and imposition of penalty of amount equal to evaded duty under Section 114A for imports made under the first two bills of entry and imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh under Section 112 (a) of the Custo...
Yalla Chandramohan, (Service No.15159749-h) Versus Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who has faced the charges under Section 52(a) of the Army Act and was convicted and sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment in Civil Prison and also dismissal from service, has challenged the impugned order of the Court Martial before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.21374 of 2008, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The short facts relevant for deciding this petition in the affidavit sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner was enrolled as a Combatant Member of Indian Army on 10.10.2002 and was given a trade of Gunner in general duty and was posted under the Second Respondent after the completion of his training. The petitioner had put in four years of unblemished service in the Indian Army. While the petition...
G. Rama Raju Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The case of the petitioner, an ex-Airman of the Indian Air Force, is one of claim for disability pension, filed as a Writ Petition No.7576 of 2006 in the Honble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and against the order of the appellate authority in rejecting the petitioners claim for disability pension. On transfer to the Regional Bench, Chennai of the Armed Forces Tribunal, on the coming into being of the AFT Act, 2007, the Writ Petition is numbered as TA 106 of 2010. 2. The short facts, for examination of the case, are set out as under: 2(a) The petitioners claim for disability pension was rejected by the third respondent in his communication dated 21.04.2005. Enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 27.09.1980 in medical category AYE as an Airman, the petitioner was discharged from IAF on 30.09.2000 on fulfilling the conditions of enrolment i.e., 20 years of continuous service. At the time of the petitio...
K.Jothisenthilkannan ... Vs. the Collector, Puducherry Revenue Departm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the petitioner's original settlement deed, dated 30.03.2010, which is retained by the second respondent, as pending document in Ref.No.P/93/2010.2. The case of the petitioner is that his father, namely, Karunagaran was absolute owner of the land situate at Kirumambakkam revenue village, bearing R.S.No.56/1A/1 with a total extent of 2 hectares and 70 ares and the same was in his valid possession and enjoyment for the past 39 years till the same was transferred in favour of her mother and himself; of the total extent of 2 hectares and 70 ares, his father preferred to make settlement in favour of his mother and himself through two different registered settlement deeds by dividing the total extent in two parts; accordingly, northern side extent of 1 hectare was allotted to his mother, namely, Tmt.Vasanthi, and transferred in her name through a registered settlement deed, dated...
S.Dhanalakshmi. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. The respondent/Inspector General of Registration framed a charge against the petitioner stating that the petitioner, while serving as Sub Registrar in Thiruvotriyur in 1992, had registered 33 documents without sending them for field inspection and thereby contravening the instructions of the respondent issued in proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, had caused loss of revenue to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,01,305/- by way of deficit Stamp Duty and Registration fees. For the said lapse and financial loss caused by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Registration/respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, instituted disciplinary action against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted a detailed explanation denying all the charges. Disagreeing with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was held and before the enquiry officer, the petitioner deposed that ...
M.Krishna Parayanar Founder Ambedkar Revolutionary Panthers Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take action to ensure that there are no encroachments of government and other Poromboke lands by influential persons and to cause an enquiry and cancel the pattas, permissions granted for laying out lands and carrying on construction in lands encroached upon by such influential persons including the 8th and 9th respondents, their families and those claiming under them, resume lands from land grabbers.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that Saravambakkam Village in Kanchipuram District measures approximately 541 acres and 31 cents out of which 397 acres and 1 cent is wet and dry agricultural lands, 144 acres and 30 cents of land is classified as government poromboke lands, an extent of 58 acres and 80 cents is a large irrigation tank (Eri) in Survey No.157. Apart from a smaller water body measuring 13 acres and 7...
M.Senthil Kumar ... Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the respondent. 2. Though a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2513 of 2009 was filed for return of vehicle viz., Motor bike (Hero Honda Passion) bearing Registration No.TN-42-7171 belonging to the petitioner, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode had refused to entertain the same for the following reasons: "(1) The petitioner already preferred a revision in C.R.P.No.24 of 2009, in which a order was passed in respect of the very same vehicle on 11.08.2009 directing the petitioner to execute bond and take interim custody of the vehicle, as such how the present petition before this Court is maintainable to be stated. (2) The judgment was made in the above matter in which the above order made in C.R.P. is confirmed and the bond also cancelled. Therefore revision before the Hon'ble High Court alone will lie and as such how the revision is maintainable to be stated.3. Fly sheet to be attached."3. Since pending disposa...
N.Raghupathy. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Writ Petition Nos.16993 and 16994 of 2007 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to determine quantity of diesel to the petitioner diesel bunk on par with the third respondent's diesel bunk at Mallipattinam and Akkaraipettai respectively, as per G.O.Ms.No.170 Commercial Taxes (B2) dated 29.10.2004.Writ Petition No.24500 of 2008 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to increase the supply of sales tax-exempted High Speed Diesel Oil to the petitioner from 36 KL per month to 400 KL per month and thereby fairly implement the G.O.Ms.No.130, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (FS-1) Department, dated 29.10.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.170 Commercial Taxes (B2) dated 29.10.2004....
T.Selvaraj .. Vs. Smt.K.Ambika, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.7.2008, made in A.S.No.487 of 2007, on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 16.12.2004, made in O.S.No.5281 of 2003.2. The appellant had filed the suit, in O.S.No.5281 of 2003, before the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a declaration, declaring that the order, dated 9.2.2001, passed by the Rent Controller, in R.C.O.P.No.1096 of 2000, is null and void, as it is without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff, and for a consequential injunction restraining the first defendant from evicting the plaintiff in view of the said order and for costs.3. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, had stated in the plaint filed in the suit, in O.S.No.5281 of 2003, that he is the absolute owner of the property and the superstructure...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »