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.
M. Suresh ... Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the orders dated 9.1.2001 and 3.6.2004 passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:a) The petitioner joined as Grade-II Police Constable on 8.1.1975 and received 42 rewards. While the petitioner was working in Tirupattur Town Police Station, on 17.8.1991, he took medical leave. The District Forest Officer, Vellore Division reported to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore on 11.12.1991 that the petitioner was roaming with two others near Kattukottai Saragam (Division) with some ulterior motive. The petitioner was complicated in a forest offence case in S.T.O.R.No.108/91-92, which was registered on 11.12.1991 on the basis of the complaint given by the Forester, Anaicut. The accusation was that the petitioner concealed sandal wood. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo under th...
S.Rajendran .. Vs. the Special Officer, Thirupalakudi Primary Agricult ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice, dated 10.09.2008 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The writ petition was admitted on 14.10.2008 and an interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently, on 18.06.2009, the interim stay was extended until further orders. In M.P.No.2 of 2008, this court directed the respondent to pay subsistence allowance on 10.9.2009. Subsequently, the said order came to be reiterated by a further order dated 22.10.2009. When the matter came up on 8.1.2010, in view of the earlier order passed by this court, M.P.No.2 of 2008 was closed. 2.On notice from this court, the respondent Thiruppalakkudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (March, 2009). In the counter affidavit, it was contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has to go before the revisional authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Ac...
S.Saravanakumar .. Vs.The State Level Scrutiny Committee, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Karaikudi dated 09.7.2002 certifying that he belongs to Hindu-Telugu Patti Chetty community which is notified as one of the Most Backward Community. On the strength of the said certificate he applied for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Degree Course and was selected and admitted in Coimbatore Medical College. On completion of the course, he is presently undergoing Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship course. An enquiry was conducted as to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner and the said certificate was cancelled by the proceedings of the District Vigilance Committee on 25.4.2008. Based on the said order of cancellation he was dismissed from the College by the communication of the Dean of Coimbatore Medical College dated 11.8.2008. Later, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition on the ground that earlier order of this Court made in W.P.No.24872 of 2006...
T.V. Swamy .. Vs. the Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. This writ appeal arises out of the Order dated 30.01.2002 made in WP No. 5470 of 1997 which was filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai made in I.D. No. 45 of 1991 and set aside its award dated 26.12.1996. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent/Management on the ground that the Labour Court, Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the appellant.2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are that the appellant herein was employed as a casual labour on 06.06.1977 in the first respondent/management to render assistance to the clerk and mechanics in the APD Service centre at Jamshedpur. According to the management, the appellant was appointed as casual employee by the Reginoal Office at Calcutta and working at Jamshedpur where they have their service centre to cater to the needs of M/s. TELCO, their major consumer for the products manufa...
The Commissioner of Central Excise. Vs. M/S.Bhagwandas Metals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise is the appellant. Challenge is to the order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2009 passed in Final Order No.1610 of 2009. The only issue is relating to the deletion of penalty. The appellant seeks to raise the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that no penalty was imposable, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no discretion is available on the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, in the decision in Union of India vs. M/s.Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008 [231] CLT 3 (SC)?"2. We heard Mr.Arunkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant.3. The Tribunal while examining the order of the Original Authority, namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 31.10.2003, has noted that in respect of the respondent's Induction Furnace Unit, the duty leviable for the period from 1.9.1997 to 31.03.2000 was Rs.6,...
Tamilaruvi Manian .. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent, i.e. Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, dated 23.09.2009 and seek to set aside the same. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7689 of 2009, seeking to challenge the order dated 6.4.2009. By the said order, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that he had violated the term No.3(1) of the lease deed. Hence a notice was given in terms of term No.31. 3.Term No.3(1) reads as follows:"3.And whereas the terms and conditions of the Lease have been though fit to be laid down in a written agreement, now this Deed of Agreement has been entered into subject to the following conditions:-(i)The Lease shall be for a period of 11 months only subject to renewal for every 11 months subject to the conditions that the lessee had not violated any of the conditions of the agreement."4. Likewise, term No.xxxi reads as follo...
M/S. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram During the period August, 2005 to March, 2006, the assessees took input credit on Grinding Wheels to the tune of Rs. 23,763/-, Since the goods in question were not inputs credit was wrongly availed. Even if the goods are to be treated as capital goods, credit should have been restricted to 50% instead of which the assessees took 100% credit. A Show Cause Notice proposing recovery of wrongly taken credit of Rs. 23,763/- together with interest and proposing penal action was issued; the notice was adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner, who held that the assessees were eligible to credit of Rs. 11,881/- only during the year 2005 2006. He ordered recovery of interest of Rs.555/- and imposed penalty equal to the credit dis-allowed. His order was upheld by the Commissioner (A); hence, this appeal. 2. On hearing both sides, and noting that Grinding Wheels certainly cannot be treated as capital goods and also noting that only 50% of the credit could be taken on the goods d...
inter Asia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
The claim of the assessees for refund of Rs.1,00,140/- being duty paid on porcelain tableware dinner set of Sri Lankan origin, on the ground that goods were exempted from duty under Notification No.105/99-Cus. has been rejected as not maintainable for the reason that the assessment of the goods was not challenged. 2. I have heard both sides. Duty in this case was paid pursuant to assessment on the Bill of Entry filed by the assessees. The issue therefore stands decided against the assessees by the apex court in Collector Vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC)] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] and the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Vs Eurotex Indus. and Exports Ltd. [2007 (216) ELT 137]. The decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2010 (250) ELT 30 (Del.)] relied upon by the assessees is not applicable to the facts of the present cas...
M/S. Jubliant Organosys Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The present appeal arises against upholding of duty demand of Rs. 4,45,165/- together with interest for the reason that the assessees had violated the conditions stipulated in (vi) of the Notification No. 30/1997 dated 01.04.1997 and for violation of the terms of the bond submitted by them. 2. I have heard both sides. The Bill of Entry was assessed on 25.05.2000 and the duty demand was quantified as Rs. 4,45,165/-. The assessees did not challenge the assessment on the Bill of Entry. Demand notice dated 19.01.2005 was issued; EODC was not submitted by the assessees who also did not pay the duty or interest demanded. Notice of personal hearing was issued; none appeared for the hearing; hence the Assistant Commissioner of Customs proceeded to confirm the demand payable from 29.07.2000. The Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessees on the ground that they ought to have challenged the assessment by seeking the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus ...
M/S. High Energy Batteries (i) Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein imported Silver Chloride Sheets and the Bills of Entry were assessed on merits for levy of 10% basic customs duty. They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 at Sl. No. 552 of the table thereto. In appeals before the Commissioner (A), which were rejected on the ground that the claim for the benefit under the said notification was not raised before the adjudicating authority and therefore, the assessees cannot be said to have a grievance against the assessment order. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (A) has clearly erred in holding that the assessees cannot be said to be aggrieved by the assessment. The plea for coverage under the notification can be raised by the assessees before the lower appellate authority who should have examined the merits of the claim or remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for such examination. I, therefore, set as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »