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.
Lm Glasfiber (i) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
The appellants have sought for adjournment on the ground of ill-health of their advocate. However, I note that the appeal has been coming up for hearing time to time and on every occasion, the assessees have sought for adjournment. Therefore, I do not see any reason to keep the appeal pending any further and hence reject the request for adjournment and dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Asiya Cell Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
Heard both sides on the appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs.61,000/- under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the belated payment of service tax of Rs.1,20,718/- together with interest. 2. The assessees plead that levy of service tax on Business Auxiliary Service came into effect only from 1.7.2003 and being a small assessees, they were not aware of their liability of tax and, on being informed by the department in writing in August 2004 to their liability, they paid the entire tax and interest for the period 2003-04 in Oct-04. The submission of the assessees is well-founded as I note that the department has not established with any material on record that assessees had knowledge that they were rendering services liable to tax so as to hold them guilty of suppression. I, therefore, set aside the penalty and allow the appeal....
K. Kanthaiya Versus Union of India Represented by and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The petitioner, an ex-Territorial Army (TA) Soldier (Guardsman), has challenged the impugned order of the first respondent dated 24.02.2006 rejecting the petitioners disability pension claim on discharge from the TA in the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide Writ Petition No.2976 of 2006. On the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the petition has been transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai and re-numbered as TA 07/2010. 2. The short facts in the petition for examination of the case is set out as follows: 2(a) The petitioner was enrolled in the TA as Guardsman on 19.11.1985 in Medical category AYE. The petitioner was posted in various places like Assam, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh and also took part in Operation Trident and Operation Bajrang. During his training session at Trichy, during organized Military games, the petitioner fell down and got a spinal injury on 03.11...
Col D. D. Pawar Versus the Union of India Rep by Its Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
(Order of the Tribunal was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, then Colonel of Indian Army had approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.20468 of 2002 challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide C/06270/SC/76/AG/Or.2/284/D (AG) dated 30.01.2002 which had deprived him his due promotion to the cadre of Brigadier and also monetory benefits including the pension and gratuity. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said writ petition has been transferred to this Tribunal on the point of jurisdiction and reassigned T.A.No.53 of 2010. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner relevant for deciding this petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the Indian Army in 1971 and was promoted to the rank of Colonel in the year 1993 considering the integrity and impeccable qualities of the petitioner, the petitioner was assigned the job to set the t...
Tamil Nadu Technical Educaton Department. Vs. the Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. The writ appeal arises out of the Order dated 05.10.1999 passed in WP No. 3453 of 1992 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 1007, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 21.06.1991 so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 350 to 371 i.e., 369/4A, 369/4B, 369/5, 371/1, 371/2, 362/2A, 362/2B, 363/6, 368/1, 369/1A, 369/2, 369/3, 352/7, 353/9, 352/1, 350/10A, 350/8, 350/9, 350/10B, 363/1A, 363/4, 363/1B, 363/2, 363/3, 350/11A, 350/11B, 352/4, 352/5, 352/6, 350/1, 365/6, 365/2A, 365/3, 365/4, 365/6A, 365/6B, 366/1A, 367/1 and quash the same.2. The appellant, claiming to be the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Technical Educaton Department Staff Co-operative House-Building Society, comprising of 200 members, who are Government servants, has filed the above writ petition contending interalia that t...
Aswinikumar. Vs. K.Maheswari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 09.10.2009 made in E.P.No.439 of 2009 in RCOP No.1108 of 2004 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, 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:The respondent herein filed RCOP No.1108 of 2004 before the Rent Controller concerned. After various proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as the higher fora, it ended in passing an eviction order as against the revision petitioner herein. Whereupon the respondent/landlady, did choose to file E.P.No.439 of 2009 for obtaining delivery of possession. The trial court ultimately ordered delivery. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of delivery passed by the Executing Court, this revision is focussed on the following main grounds:1. The executing court was wrong in simply ordering delivery without waiting to see as...
Krishnaswamy (Died), and ors. Vs. Mungoora Gounder (Died), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. The Deceased First Appellant/Plaintiff, during his life time, has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court and during the pendency of the Second Appeal, in lieu of his death, his Legal Representatives have been impleaded as his Legal Representatives and brought on record as Appellants. 2.The short facts of the Appellants' case are as follows:The Deceased First Appellant/Plaintiff's Grandfather was one Thippanna Gowder. The Deceased First Respondent/First Defendant's Grandfather was Mungoora Gowder. Thippanna Gowder and Mungoora Gowder were brothers. The Second Respondent/Second Defendant is the wife of the Deceased First Respondent/First Defendant. The plaint schedule A and B properties initially belonged to the great Grandfather of the Deceased First Appellant/Plaintiff and the Deceased First Respondent/First Defendant. The great Grandfather of the First Appellant/Plaintiff left behind him sons one Thippanna Gowder and Mungoora Gowder. Thippanna Gowder left a son by name P...
M/S.United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs. P.Subramani .... and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.21,00,887/- for the injuries sustained by 1st Respondent-Claimant, Appellant-Insurance Company who is the insurer of the tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227 has filed this Appeal.2. Brief facts are that on 10.07.2000 at about 21.55 hours, 1st Respondent-Claimant was driving the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N 2722 from Parrys to Karonadai along GNT Road. When the Bus stopped at ACT Company Bus stop, Madhavaram, the Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J 3227 came from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner attempted to overtake an unknown vehicle and in that process came to its right side and collided head on which the bus was driven by the 1st Respondent. Due to the accident, 1st Respondent-Claimant sustained compound and communited fracture of right femur; compound and communited fracture of both bones in right leg; compound and communited fracture of...
P.Chinnasamy. Vs. K.L.Palanisamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 31.10.2007 passed in by the Sub Court, Tirupur, in I.A.No.510 of 2007 in O.S.No.210 of 1999, this civil revision petition is focused.2. The short and long of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petitioner would run thus: (i) An ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the respondent herein in O.S.No.210 of 1999 which is a money suit for recovery of Rs.2,90,084/- with interest and costs. (ii) According to the plaintiff summons was taken to the known address, but it was returned as refused. Whereupon paper publication was effected and since there was no response, ex-parte proceeding went on and it fructified in the form of ex-parte decree dated 4.7.2000. Subsequently, E.P.was filed and E.P.notice was served on the judgement debtor, namely, the revision petitioner herein on 25.8.2006. However, the application for getting the delay of four months condoned in filing the application to get set aside the ex-p...
The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Balaguru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Perambalur Branch, which figured as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2004, is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein preferred a claim on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Perambalur against the second respondent herein and the appellant herein being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries allegedly sustained by him in an accident that allegedly took place on 25.01.2004 at about 2.30 p.m. near Valikandapuram within the jurisdiction of Mangalamedu police station.2. It was the contention of the first respondent herein/claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that while he was proceeding on the Trichy-Chennai NH road in the direction of South to North at a place called Valpattarai on the South of Valikandanpuram in his T.V.S. 50 two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-45-...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »