Chennai Court June 2010 Judgments
M/S. Shri Ambika Sugars Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
The issue for determination in this appeal is whether availment of CENVAT credit by the assessees on inputs and input services used exclusively in the generation of electricity in their power plant is admissible. 2. On hearing both sides I find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by the apex Court’s decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) wherein the Court has held that CENVAT credit is not admissible on inputs utilized in generation of excess electricity cleared from their clients on contractual rates or cleared in favour of the assessees. The assessees are therefore not eligible to credit on inputs and input services used in generation of electricity which is wheeled out. However, since the authorities below have directed reversal of credit on inputs and input services used in the generation of electricity which is used for both manufacture of final products and which is wheeled out, re-quantification of the duty demand is required ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, the theni Allinagar Municipality Vs. K. Karnan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant /opposite party, praying for the direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.6040/- with 24% interest and to pay Rs.70,000/- towards the compensation with cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.8.2008 in COP No.41/2008.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open Court) 1. The appeal itself taken for hearing, by consent. 2. The respondent herein as complainant, accusing the municipality, as if they have not provided water supply connection, lodged a complaint before the District Forum, not only for the direction to give water supply connection, but also for compensation of Rs.70000/-, in addition to someother reliefs, which was contested on various grounds. 3. The District Forum, after consideration, allowed the complaint, issuing a direction, directing the opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Bakthavatsalam. Vs. Ramalingam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. These Second Appeal have been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:(a)Whether the Plaintiff in OS.No.340/94 has proved his vendor's title?(b)Whether the Defendant in OS.NO.340/94 and the Plaintiff in OS.NO.349/94 has not proved his vendors' title?(c)Whether the Defendant in OS.No.340/94 has prescribed title by adverse possession?2. The Appellant had filed the suit in OS.No.349/94 for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21.3.94 Ex.B1, constructed a hut, put up thorn fence on the north, south and west and on the east, the fence already put up by the eastern owner is in existence. According to the Appellant, his predecessor in title and after purchase under Ex.B1 sale deed, the Appellant is in possession and they have prescribed title by adverse possession.3. According to the Respondent, the suit propert...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.R.Palanisamy .. Vs. Mr.Ansal Mishra ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 3.12.2008, in W.P.No28643 of 2008.2. This Court had passed an order, on 3.12.2008, in W.P.No.28643 of 2008, directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.11.2008, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if it had not been disposed of till the date of the said order.3. From the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the petitioner it is seen that the petitioner had sent a representation, only on 7.10.2009, and a legal notice had been issued by the petitioner's counsel, on 7.12.2009. On receipt of the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner the first respondent had issued proceedings, dated 11.1.2010.4. In such circumstances, this Court does not find that the allegation of the petitioner t...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S.Jeyachandran . Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.568 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode seeks to quash proceedings in such case.2.The case in Crime No.167 of 2003 was registered on 28.04.2003 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The body of a man aged about 35 years, bearing injuries was found floating in a well. The original investigation in the case was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police then attached to such police station. This petitioner upon transfer as Inspector of Police, Erode Town, took charge of the investigation on 29.09.2003, effected alteration of the FIR to reflect Section 302 IPC, recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from 5 persons, prepared the toposketch and observation mahazar.3.The petitioner is said to have misconducted himself in the conduct of such investigation and the petitioner was arrayed as the 5th accused in Crime No.167 of 2003. The petitioner had filed a petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Malarkodi, and anr. Vs. K.Subramanian, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2008, made in A.S.No.45 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.2007, made in O.S.No.249 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.2. The appellants in the present second appeal were the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.249 of 2003. The respondents herein had filed the suit, in O.S.No.249 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram, praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit, their men and agents from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiffs right of usage of common Narasam, and for a mandatory interim injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorised construction of the wall and the sunshade over the common Narasam and the iron gate put up by the defendants in the common passage.3. The plaintiffs in the suit are claiming ...
Tag this Judgment!Karunanidhi Mudaliar. Vs. Lakshmanan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.07.1999, passed in CMA No.8 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1997, passed in unnumbered E.A. of 1990 in E.P.No.1012 of 1985 in O.S.No.657 of 1973 by the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, 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 revision petition would run thus:The decree holder/Kuppulakshmiammal in this case by way of recovering the money due under the decree, filed E.P.No.1012 of 1985, so as to bring three lots of properties belonging to the judgment debtor for sale and accordingly, the first lot was sold in the public auction and one Venugopal was the successful bidder. Thereafter, an unnumbered E.A. was filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for getting the sale aside. At that stage, the learned Munsif, Villupuram by virtue of his order dated 18.09.1990 ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Uma ... Vs. the Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in letter No.SE/KGC/MIN/001915-66/Nee Pe.2/wc 1/2005, dated 26.2.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein in any suitable post on compassionate ground in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with all monetary and service benefits.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father M.Marutha Raj was working as Vehicle Helper with the respondent. The petitioner's father died on 27.10.1999, while he was in service. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's brother submitted an application on 29.4.2002 for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was not considered by the respondents on the ground that her brother has not passed 8th Standard. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an applicati...
Tag this Judgment!The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Cmwssb) Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order of learned single Judge dated 21.08.2008 in W.P.No.20333 of 2008, allowing the Writ Petition and directing Appellants 1 and 2-Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) to provide water and drainage connection to the building put up by the first respondent without insisting upon 'No Objection Certificate' from the third appellant-Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) is the appellant. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent put up special residential building in Plot No.156, M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49 comprised in Survey No.249/3A1B1 Part of Villivakkam village, measuring an extent of 13069 sq. ft. with 12 dwellings units consisting of Ground plus three floors. Alleging that Appellant-CMWSSB is insisting for completion certificate/no objection certificate from the third appellant for giving water connection, the writ petitioner/respondent has fil...
Tag this Judgment!Aranthangi Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tric ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
The issue in dispute namely as to whether CENVAT credit is admissible to the assessees on CHA services (denied on the ground that the service is not an input service) stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Chennai Vs Fourrts (I) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-396]. This decision in turn relies upon Commissioner Vs Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. [2008-TIOL-383] and Commissioner Vs Adani Pharmachemp Pvt. Ltd. [2008-TIOL-2584]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order disallowing the credit of service tax, and allow the appeal by setting aside interest levied and the imposition of penalty along with tax amount....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »