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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Sicgil India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether rental charges and cylinder service charges on cylinders holding/bulk storage, collected from the buyers, are required to be added to the assessable value of carbon dioxide cleared by the assessees in liquefied form in durable and returnable cylinders stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunal’s decision in their own case reported in 2009-TIOL-1847-CESTAT-MAD relying upon earlier decisions. The Bench has held that such charges are not required to be added to the assessable value of the carbon dioxide manufactured and cleared. 2. Following the ratio of the above, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Annam Ammal, and ors. Vs. M/S.Hema Sampath, Adv.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.8 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chidambaram are the appellants herein. The plaintiff in the above suit is the respondent in the appeal and the cross objector in Cross Objection No.1 of 2004.2. The averments made by the respondent/cross objector /plaintiff in the plaint can be stated in brief as follows:Respondent/cross objector /plaintiff Selvanathan is the only son of Mahalinga Padayachi. The first appellant is the mother of the respondent/cross objector/plaintiff' and the appellants 2 and 3 are his sisters. Appellant No.4, Gunasekaran is the husband of Appellant No.3 Selvanayagi. The paternal grandfather of the respondent/cross objector/plaintiff was one Veerappa Padayachi. He got 7 acres of land in a partition with his brothers. After the death of Veerappa Padayachi, his son Mahalinga Padayachi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with his only son viz., the respondent/plaintiff and they were treated and ...
M.Dhanaraj. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The petitioner, M.Dhanaraj, has filed the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent on 22.10.99.2. The petitioner, while serving as Village Administrative Officer, Ketty-III Village of Coonoor Taluk, alleged to have misappropriated Government money collected during the month of April, 1998. The petitioner collected the land revenue tax amount of Rs.980/- on 21.04.98 and even after obtaining the signature of the Revenue Inspector, Ketty and Deputy Tahsildar of Taluk Office, Coonoor on 30.04.98 for remitting the said money into the Government account, he did not remit the said amount. Even in the year 1991, the petitioner had committed the same offence of misappropriation, for which, he was placed under suspension as per the proceedings Rc.A1.No.7168/90, dated 27.09.91 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. Subsequently, in the said case also charges were framed against him vide Revenue Divisional Offi...
P.Gopikrishnan @govindaraj, and ors. Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. Petitioners 1 to 6 in this petition have been arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 6 in a case registered on the file of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City as Crime No.7 of 2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b) and Section 420 I.P.C. The said case was registered based on the complaint of the defacto complainant who has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent in this petition. The petitioners have sought for an order quashing the First Information Report by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2.Even though all the six accused persons have been joined together in filing the petition, subsequently the petitioners 1 and 2 / A1 and A2 seem to have engaged a different counsel. The present counsel on record for petitioners 1 and 2 alone appeared and the counsel who originally filed the petition on behalf of all the accused and has been retained by the petitioners 3 to 6 / A3 to A6 has chosen to keep away from the Court. The learned counsel for ...
Ganesan, and ors. Vs. the Revenue Dvisional Officer Cum - Sub Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The revision petitioners herein are the B-parties and the respondents 3 to 9 are the A-parties in M.C.No.18 of 2010, before the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruchengode. The Inspector of Police, Jaderpalayam, Thiruchengode Taluk submitted a report before the Executive Magistrate regarding the dispute between the A-parties and B-parties with regard to the existence of the situation likely to cause a breach of peace due to the dispute regarding possession of the properties.2. The learned Executive Magistrate also sent notice to both parties directing them to appear before him on 01.03.2010. On 01.03.2010 both the parties have appeared and written submissions were filed only by A-party and they were again directed to appear on 15.03.2010. On 15.03.2010, the Executive Magistrate passed an order prohibiting both parties from using the properties and directing both parties to maintain status quo.3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Executive Magi...
S.Chockkalingam .. Vs. the Chief General Manager State Bank of India, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The petitioner, who is a defaulter in the payment of amount due to the Bank had come forward with this writ petition.2. The petitioner had committed default in the payment of amounts due to the Bank, the Bank had instituted suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and the same was subsequently transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in T.A.No.1370 of 2002. The petitioner had approached the Bank for One Time Settlement under OTS scheme and as per the same, he was permitted to remit a sum of Rs.1,05,98,428/- as against the outstanding of Rs.1,71,00,428.78p with condition to pay Rs.75 lakhs on or before 30.06.2006, the balance amount of Rs.30,98,428/- on or before 31.03.2007, 10.25% interest for payment of the compromise amount and in the event of default, entire dues with upto date interest will be payable to the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Though the petitioner agreed to pay, he could not pay the amount. He paid only Rs.10 lakhs on 30.06.2006 and he would...
Akilan, and ors. Vs. State Rep. by the Station House Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The petitioners were accused in Crime No.190 of 2008 registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry for offence under Section 420 r/w.34 IPC. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the respondent herein for further investigation, who by filing an alteration report dated 02.06.2008 had included Sections 406, 120-B of IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 along with Section 420 r/w.34 of IPC.2. A case was registered on a complaint dated 14.05.2008, wherein, the informant had informed :- "That on 14.05.2008, a complaint was lodged by one Mrs.S.Jagadhambal wife of Mr.Satya Seelan, with the Sub Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry against petitioners 1 to 3. In the said complaint the defacto complainant had alleged that the third petitioner had approached her and explained that the fourth petitioner herein was running its operations in Chennai and if she invested Rs.33,000/- (R...
M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. T.Apparanantham, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 01.02.2010 of the learned V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in M.P.No.3979 of 2009 in M.C.O.P.No.4499 of 2005, 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 civil revision petition would run thus: The first respondent T.Apparanantham herein filed MACTOP No.4499 of 2005 claiming certain amount for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle accident. It appears that some understanding emerged between the Insurance Company and the claimant and the fact remains that the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. Based on such compromise, Lok Adalat award was passed on 11.07.2009 awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in favour of the claimant payable by the Insurance company. Subsequently, when the Insurance company came to know of the Lok Adalat award, it raised query as against its official viz., Ilavara...
R.Boopathy, and anr. Vs. V.Manickamurthy, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 14.8.2009 passed by the Principle Subordinate Judge, Tirupur in C.M.A.No.7 of 2008 confirming the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tirupur, in I.A.No.50 of 2008 in O.S.No.498 of 2005.C.M.A.No.7 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.3. Despite printing the names of the advocates for R1 and R2 there is no appearance. Heard the learned counsel for R3 to R5.4. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition as against as many as 6 defendants, including the revision petitioners 1 and 2 herein. It so happened that the defendants 1 and 2-the revision petitioners herein, did not appear; whereupon they were set ex-parte and the matter proceeded further and the Court passed the preliminary decree for partition. (ii) Subsequently, the re...
S.R. Nanjundan (Deceased), and ors. Vs. S.R. Srikandan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The following are the allegations contained in the plaint:1.(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant are brothers, who are sons of S.N. Ramasamy Iyer. The fourth plaintiff is their sister. Though the deceased had executed three Wills dated 1.9.1980, 4.1.1982 and 12.7.1982 claiming that the suit properties as his self acquired properties, he must have deemed to have died intestate. He died on 14.8.1984. The plaintiffs 1 to 3, defendant and the deceased all constituted a Hindu joint family. The suit properties were acquired in 1934 in the name of the deceased being the father and kartha of the family. He was employed as a Clerk in State Educational Service and his salary was hardly sufficient to maintain the large family. 1.(b) The joint family possessed certain ancestral properties near Sulur and the suit sites were acquired from and out of the income from the ancestral properties. For putting up the constructions on the site, the income from the ancestral properties, supplemented by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »