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/S. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram Rejection of the assessee’s claim for refund of Rs. 2,86,236/- being the duty paid on short shipped import consignments is challenged in the present appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The invoice covered two varieties of mother boards viz., MB SA 509 003 and MB 4407.001. Bill of Entry was filed by the assessees for both types of mother boards and duty payable on them was paid. The airway bill and packing list covered only one variety namely MB SA 509 003. The goods in this case were not subject to examination and the assessees noticed only one variety of the mother board had landed and there was a short shipment of the entire quantity of the second variety of mother board. The authorities below have however, rejected their claim for refund on the ground that there was no examination of the goods and from the airway bill dated 03.12.2007, the number of packages is 25 which is same as that mentioned in the Bill of Entry and not 50 packages as contended by t...
M/S. Misri Apparels Pvt. 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 Plastic Zipper/Zinc slider painted 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. 24/2007 at Sl. No. 75 A 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 any 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 aside ...
M. Chinnapaiyan Versus Air Officer Commanding / Officiating Group and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The petitioner has filed the earlier petition W.P.No.4473 of 2004 challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in 5 BRD/C/5706/1/732/P1 dated 5th May 1986 and also the order of confirmation passed by the third respondent in Air HQ/41012/158/M/PA(CC) dated 19th August 2003, with a request to give necessary direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to discharge the petitioner from service under Rule 15(2) of the Air Force Rule 1969. While the said Writ Petition is pending, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.8773 of 2006 once again challenging the order of the respondents in letter No. Air HQ/41012/158/M/PA (CC) dated 19.08.2003 and also to discharge him from service. Both the Writ Petitions were transferred from the High Court of Madras to this Tribunal after the constitution of the same after passing of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and reassigned T.A.Nos.138 and 139 of 2009 respectively. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition in T.A.No.138 of 2009 relev...
J.N.Agnihotri .. Vs. M/S.Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. The Writ Petitioner/Claim Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the Second Respondent pertaining to the order dated 23.2.2004 made in Claim Petition No.297 of 2000 denying the claim so made and to quash the same and further to direct the First Respondent to calculate and pay the arrears of salary and other allowances as per the claim made in C.P.No.297 of 2000 along with interest.2. The Principal Labour Court, while passing orders in Claim Petition No.297 of 2000 on 23.2.2004, has, inter alia, observed that 'The Petitioner has not adduced any satisfactory and acceptable evidence for the claim amount of Rs.7,35,222.10. Since the Respondent has admitted in para 14 of the counter that the Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,25,328.07. I hold that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,25,328.07 and consequently, computed the money value of the benefits due to the petitioner at Rs.3,25,32...
Saminathan .... Vs. Annasamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 4.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.304 of 2008 in O.S.No.267 of 2006 by the Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.79,275.00 with interest in the Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur. The revision petitioner/defendant remained ex-parte. Thereafter he has chosen to file the I.A.No.304 of 2008 to get the delay of 229 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex-parte decree set aside. The trial Court dismissed the said application, as against which, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the quintessence of the same would run thus: The lower Court failed to take into account the genuine reasons stated by the revision petitioner/defendant to get the delay condoned. In...
M.Ethasham, and anr. Vs. Nanjil Manimaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.11.2007 passed in R.C.A.No.480 of 2006 by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order dated 3.4.2006 passed in M.P.No.707 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.2299 of 2004 by the XII 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 civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.2299 of 2004 for eviction. The defendant remained ex-parte; whereupon order was passed. Subsequently, M.P.No.707 of 2005 was filed to get the delay of 155 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex-parte order of eviction set aside. (ii) The Rent Controller dismissed the said application on the main point that the eviction order was passed on merits and it was not an ex-parte order. As against the said order, the revision petitioners preferred the R.C.A.No.480 of 20...
Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre, Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in WC.1A126-09 & 127-09 in W.C.No.114/1999 dated 30th November 2009.3. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:-The third respondent herein filed the claim petition before the first respondent under Section 10(1) and (1A) of the Workman Compensation Act. It was stated that the third respondent was working as the painter in the building owned by the opposite party and was receiving a sum of Rs.130/- as daily wages. The opposite party in the claim petition was Karpakkam Anadhai Illam, Old Mahapalipuram Road, Karapakkam, Chennai 96. The third respondent stated that on 12.11.1998, at about 12.00 Noon, while he was doing painting work in the building belonging to the opposite party, he had fallen down and one Raniammal, who was in charge of the adm...
K.Lakshmanan, and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. One Mr.Murugesa Naicker and his wife were the owners of the land measuring 37,150 sq.m. comprised in S.No.174 at Madipakkam Village. Mr.Murugesa Naicker formed un-approved lay out and started selling the plots. Plot Nos.1 to 36 were sold prior to 17.05.1978 and the remaining plots were sold prior to 24.05.1986. The petitioners are the respective purchasers of the said plots. While so, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act of 1978 came into force on 17.05.1978. As per Section 6 of the said Act, the sale of the plots made subsequent to the coming into force of the said Act namely on or after 17.05.1978 shall be void. But, in case on hand, the plots sold before 17.05.1978 and so, they do not fall within the purview of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, these sales cannot be held to be void, it is contended. 2.While so, the third respondent initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Section 11(1) of the Act declaring that Mr.Murugesa Naicker had land in excess of the cei...
K.Muthuram ... Vs. P.Jagannathan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 19.6.2008 passed in I.A.No.48 of 2008 in O.S.No.6031 of 2006 by the VII Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (a) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit invoking Order 37 of C.P.C; whereupon it appears, ex-parte decree was passed by the trial Court, as against which, application was filed for getting the ex-parte decree set aside, but that was dismissed. As against the said order C.R.P. was filed and it was allowed with a direction that procedure should be followed strictly in accordance with Order 37 of C.P.C. (b) Whereupon the plaintiff gave summons for judgement as per Order 37 and on receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the necessary I.A. seeking leave of the Court. (iii) After hearing both sides, the lowe...
V.Karuppannan ... Vs. Mrs.U.Bhagyalakshmi ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 6.1.2010 passed in I.A.No.2728 of 2008 in O.S.No.831 of 2007 by the Principal Distrit Munsif, Coimbatore, 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 civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for partition, which was decreed ex-parte. Subsequently, I.A.No.2728 of 2008 was filed for obtaining final decree and notice also was sent to the other side. Thereafter, with the delay of 438 days application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed, so as to get the delay of 438 days condoned in the process of filing the application to get the ex-parte preliminary decree set aside. (ii) The said application was contested and the lower Court ultimately condoned the delay by imposing a cost of Rs.500/- payable by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.4. Being aggrieved by and d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »