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.
Mrs.Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi ... Vs. Raja Ratinam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.9/1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC) Chidambaram has come forward with A.S.No.676/2002 as against the disallowed portion of her claim made in the plaint. The first defendant therein has filed A.S.No.857/2002 against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial court in the above said suit. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the suit.2. Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi, the plaintiff filed the original suit raising the following contentions:-Suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. As he died on 20.10.1995 without leaving any Will, his daughter, namely the plaintiff and his son, namely the second defendant (Bala Ganesan) became entitled to the suit 'A' schedule property as the legal heirs of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar, each one being entitled to 1/2 share. The first defendant Raja Rathinam is the brother of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidha...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Samsung Electronics India In ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram On hearing both sides we note that the issue in dispute namely as to whether the bar of unjust enrichment operates in cases of refund of customs duty consequent to finalization of provisional assessment pre-2006, stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT 629. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the apex Court’s decision in CCE, Chennai Vs. TVS Suzuki Ltd. - 2003 (156) ELT 161 (SC) to hold that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to refund claims consequent upon finalization of assessment which finding has been challenged in the appeal by the Revenue that the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision relates to excise duty and is not applicable to a case of customs duty. The Larger Bench decision referred above covers the very issue in dispute and following the ratio ther...
M/S. Uplus Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide Stay Order No. 863/2009 dated 22.9.2009, predeposit of Rs.20 lakhs by the assessee was directed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessees moved the Hon’ble Madras High Court by filing Writ Petition No.3413 of 2010 along with M.P. No. 1 of 2010, and vide order dated 15.3.2010 the Hon ble High Court reduced the predeposit amount to Rs.10 lakhs and granted a period of two weeks from that date for making the above deposit. 2. As on date there is no proof of the High Court’s order modifying the Tribunal’s stay order has been complied with. We, therefore, dismiss the above appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962....
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Wipro Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 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.38 lakhs 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 have been mechanically issued without any application of mind. 3. The learned SDR has been able to satisfy 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 Revenue i...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Vs. M/S. Eid Parry (In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Even though notice has been served on the respondent, none has appeared for the respondent.2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant formulating the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to dispose an appeal, which does not fall within the discretionary power conferred by the second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without passing a reasoned order on merits, especially in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the case of Standard Radiators Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (143) ELT 24 (SC) and Unimac India Ltd. reported in 2006 (198) ELT 488 (SC) that the Tribunal is the final court of fact.2. Whether credit of duty availed on the inputs used in generation of electricity to the extent to which it has been wheeled out the TNEB grid and hence not utilised in the manufacturing process, is recoverable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in...
K.A.Mohammed Ibrahim ... Vs. the District Revenue Officer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to permit him to publish his monthly magazine named "URIMAI MOZHI". 2.The petitioner is the President of the "Tamil Nadu Human Rights Movement" which is functioning in Salem City. The organization is fighting for social justice and struggles for the interest of the downtrodden people. The organization also struggles against violations of Human Rights and Police atrocities and also against the social evils. He decided to start a monthly magazine to bring awareness among the public regarding Human Rights and Constitutional Rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India. He made a representation to the first respondent on 21.11.2007 seeking permission to publish magazine in any one of the four names as the title including "URIMAI MOZHI". 3. Based on his representation, the first respondent sent a letter dated 29.01.2008 to the Assist...
Murugaram Transport, and ors. Vs. Kaveri Tyres.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Judge viz., the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, dated 31.08.2001 made in O.S.No.37 of 2000 on the file of the Court below. The defendant, who suffered the Decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs.33,210/- with interest and costs, has filed the appeal.2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein against Murugaram Transport, originally showing one Periyasamy be its Proprietor. It was contended in the plaint that Murugaram Transport regularly purchased tires and tubes from the respondent/plaintiff on credit basis and a sum of Rs.33,210/- was due as on 25.12.1998; that the said Periyasamy representing Murugaram Transport confirmed the balance and acknowledged the debt in writing on 30.12.1999; that thereafter despite repeated request and service of a legal notice on 21.03.2000, the appellant concern viz., Murugaram Transport failed to discharge the said loan and that hence the respondent/plaintiff w...
M.V.Rajamani .. Vs. the Secretary to Government Agriculture Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
1. The petitioner has filed two petitions. O.A. No.7293/95 converted as W.P. No.27575/06 has been filed praying to quash the revised seniority list of Assistants issued by the Addl. Director of Agriculture (Personnel Management), Directorate of Agriculture, Madras, in his proceedings MES 2/36788/95 dated 9th Nov., 1995, insofar as including the petitioner Rajamani in the seniority list of Assistants as on 15th March, 1979 at S. No.185 and to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the seniority list of Assistants as on 1st July, 1973 in proper place in accordance with the decision rendered by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4889/92 dated 11th Jan., 1995. The 2nd writ petition, W.P. No.24380/04 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Superintendent fit for promotion to the post of Administrative Offic...
Selvaraj ... Vs. Balaji ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
1. Second Appeal No.1095/2007 has been preferred against the decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry dated 18.04.2007 in A.S.No.14/2005 confirming the decree passed by the trial court, namely the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dated 16.12.2004 in O.S.No.199/1999.2. Second Appeal No.1138/2007 has been preferred against the decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry dated 18.04.2007 in A.S.No.26/2005 confirming the decree passed by the trial court, namely the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dated 16.12.2004 in O.S.No.287/1998.3. O.S.No.199/1999 had been filed by Selvaraj, the appellant in S.A.No.1095/2007 against Balaji, the sole respondent/defendant for a permanent injunction. O.S.No.287/1998 had been filed by Sengeniammal, Dhanalakshmi and Amsavalli (at present no more). Amsavalli's legal representative is Karpagam, the second appellant in S.A.No.1138/2007. Sengeniammal also died and her legal representative is Por...
M/S. Kumaragiri Spinners Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
Heard both sides. 2. The appellants obtained 4,07,198/- kgs. of viscose staple fibre under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) without payment of duty for the purpose of export. However, only 3,05,613.60 kgs. were utilized for export. The appellants had cleared the balance 80,217 kgs. for home consumption in the domestic market on payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. In the present appeal the claim of the appellants for refund of the duty amount and also the claim for CENVAT credit on inputs used in the impugned staple fibre have been rejected by the authorities below. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants clearly explains the facts of the case and reiterates the claims of the appellants. The learned SDR appearing for the Department states that the lower appellate authority has considered the claims of the appellants and has rightly rejected the same. 4. I find that part of the goods obtained duty-free for export purposes has not been exported. As such, the du...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »