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.
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sun Industrial Automation and Solutions Ltd. Res ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
Heard both sides who confirm that the lower appellate authority decided the matter in favour of the respondents applying the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (204) ELT 323 (Tri. - LB). As such, the Department has no case on merits and hence the Department s appeal is dismissed....
M/S. Kalaimahaa Plastic Industries and Another Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
Heard both sides. Shri S. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are a small scale unit. They manufacture HDPE bags and sheets. He states that the appellants have marginally crossed the small scale exemption limit after excluding the value of job work done by them and as soon as the departmental authorities pointed out their duty liability on the goods cleared in excess of the small scale exemption limit, the appellants had paid the duty and interest thereon. As such, he pleads that the non-payment of duty was a bona fide error on the part of the appellants and there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of duty warranting penal action against the appellants. 2. He also states that the authorities below have not given the appellants the option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed as required under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994. In this connection, he relies on the following decisions:- (i) K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unio...
Shaik Karimulla (Ex-service â No. 2582718-h) Versus the Secretary ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the fourth respondent vide No.2582718/SP/176/PG-1, dated 05.03.2002, an order of dismissal, before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of filing W.P.No.17753 of 2002 and the same, after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, has been transferred to this Tribunal and reassigned T.A.No.65 of 2009. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner sans irrelevant particulars for the purpose of deciding this petition are as follows:- The petitioner joined in the Army Service on 05.09.1981. The petitioner has got three awards in his 11 years of service viz. Samanya Seva Medal, Videsh Seva Medal and Special Seva Medal by the Army authorities. On the ground of over-staying of leave, the petitioner was dismissed by the fourth respondent under Section 39(b) of the Army Act without giving any sufficient reason vide Proceedings N...
Sk.Singh .. Vs. the Director General, Coast Guard Headquarters, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
1. Challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the 3rd respondent dated 05.06.2002, which has been confirmed by the 1st respondent by his communication dated 30.09.2002, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.2. The facts, in a nutshell, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the writ petition, are as follows:The petitioner herein joined as Assistant Commandant on 04.02.1980 in the Indian Coast Guard service. Subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Commandant and then as Commandant. Thereafter, he was posted as Commanding Officer of Coast Guard Office at Tuticorin and he served in that capacity between May,1996 and June,2000. Then, the petitioner was transferred to the Coast Guard Station at Chennai for duties with Regional Headquarters(East). It is the case of respondents 1 to 3 that while the petitioner was working as the Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Station at Tuticorin between May, 1996 and June, 2000, the Deputy Commandant, M.K...
Shanmugam. Vs. Arthanari.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 6.8.2009 passed in REP No.56 of 2008 in O.S.N.17 of 2005 by the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode. (R.E.P.No.23 of 2007 in O.S.No.17 of 2005-Sub-Court, Namakkal)., this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner herein by way of executing the decree in O.S.No.17 of 2005 filed the REP.No.56 of 2008 with the following prayer:"to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C.on behalf of the respondent/J.Ds.register the same and thereby order to deliver the possession of the properties detailed in the schedule hereunder or alternatively to direct the respondent/J.D.to pay the advance amount Rs.2,00,000/- and damages of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate 9% for p.a.from the date of suit and realisation." Whereupon the...
T.Dhanraju .. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
1. Challenging the impugned Letter No.17689/H2/2007-6 dated 24.03.2008 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition and also for a direction to promote the petitioner as District Registrar from the date his junior, reserved candidate was promoted, with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner joined the Registration Department as Junior Assistant on 01.03.1974 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant. The next higher post is Sub-Registrar Grade-II, which is being filled up by both direct recruitment as well as by recruitment by transfer. The then existing Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service, prescribed eight years of service including two years as Assistant, as one of the qualifications for consideration for appointment as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II by recruitment by transfer. The petitioner had completed two years of service as Assistant on 18.07.1979 and...
Mr.M.Muthappan, Adv. Vs. Mr.P.Subramanian, Adv.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.28225 of 2008, viz., Ravi was working as Head Constable at Keevalur Police Station, Nagapattinam District and the petitioner in W.P.No.28227 of 2008, viz., Rajagopal was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the same police station, Nagapattinam District from 02.03.2005 and on 08.03.2005 early morning, both the petitioners along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW) conducted a raid near Velipalayam Anna Statue and intercepted a car bearing registration No. TN 51A 5737 carrying illicit liquor. The car was seized and the accused, viz., Prabakaran and two others were arrested and the driver of the car escaped from the scene of occurrence. The secured accused were brought to the police station and a case was registered in Crime No.386/2005 under section 4(1)(aaa) read wi...
S.Samatharmam .. Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
1. Challenging the G.O.(3D) No.167, Highways (HR.1) Department, dated 07.08.2002 and also the Letter dated 26.8.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed and also for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer for the year 2000-2001 and promote him as Assistant Divisional Engineer with all consequential and further promotional benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, on 19.11.1981 and was also promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 04.04.2005. After working in various stations, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Sector Project, Ramanathapuram. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in Highways Department, a Charge memo, containing 11 charges, was issued by Memo No.10631/...
M/S. Subramaniam Electric Fabricate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The Department had issued a show-cause notice demanding duty on MS street light tubular poles manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. It has been contended on behalf of the Department that the appellants did not also include the value of base plates and brackets attached to the electric poles and also showed lesser length of the poles than the actual length apart from raising invoices only for labour charges and showing the finished goods as non-excisable. 2. Shri V. Srikanth, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the appellants are merely drilling poles in the pipes and the activities undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture of a new item. He also cites the following decision in support of his argument:- (i) Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1990 (45) ELT 525 (SC) (ii) Vikrant Engineers Vs. CCE - 1998 (99) ELT 549 (iii) Hindustan Poles Corporation Vs....
D.Rajendran .. Vs. the Presiding Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
1. The petitioner is a workman. He has come forward to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent labour court in I.D.No.253 of 1995, dated 14.1.2000 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the second respondent management to reinstate him with continuity of service and backwages. 2.By the impugned Award, the first respondent labour court held that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act) and hence the dispute raised by him is not maintainable against the termination order dated 8.6.1992. Therefore, the petition filed by him under Section 2A(2) was not maintainable and the dispute was dismissed. The writ petition was admitted on 25.9.2000 and notice was ordered to the second respondent. Original records were also called for from the labour court and circulated for perusal by this court. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for workman and Mr.N.Balasubramani...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »