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.
T.Thanapandian. Vs. Tender Award Committee, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. The petitioner states that he is a Class I Registered Contractor. The petitioner has been executing various project works allotted by the Government of Tamilnadu from its various Departments for more than 15 years. The Government of Tamilnadu issued notification dated 28.10.2009 calling for tenders from Class - I contractors to award the work for construction of Fish Landing Centres at Periyamangodu in Thiruvallur District. 2.In response to the said notification, the petitioner submitted his tender application to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the process of selection involves two stages, namely, qualification tender and price tender. The petitioner was fully qualified in the qualification tender and hence he was allowed to participate in the price tender. In the price tender, his tender was accepted. After negotiation, the tender value was fixed at Rs.4,27,01,055/- 3.Whileso, a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner relating to a work in...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. M/S. Bathija International, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether service tax is payable on commission paid to agents outside India by the respondents from 12.08.2004 to 16.04.2006 stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs Union of India [2008-TIOL -633-HC-MUM-ST], upheld by the apex court in Union of India Vs Indian National Shipowners Association [2007 (17) S.T.R.J57 (S.C.)]. The courts have held that tax is leviable on such services only with the introduction of Section 66A on 18.04.2006. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order setting aside the demand for the period upto 17.04.2006 and reject the appeal....
M/S. L.G. Balakrishan and Bros. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. Duty liability has been fastened on sprockets manufactured by the assessees herein at the stage prior to their being tested. The contention of the assessees is that the goods become finished products and liable to duty only after the process of testing is carried out and no customer could purchase this item unless the mandatory tests are carried out. They also submit in their appeal memorandum that the process of phospating and zinc plating take place only after the hardness testing. This plea arises for the first time in the appeal before the Tribunal and it is vital to examine and verify whether any process is carried out further to the testing so as to enable the appellants to substantiate their plea that the stage for levy of duty has not arisen at the point when the goods are taken for testing. Interest of justice requires verification of the stand taken by the assessees regarding carrying out of two further processes subsequent to the testing of the goods. I, therefore, set as...
M/S. Chettinadu Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
1. The assessees challenge the penalty of Rs.1,90,696/- imposed under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The period of dispute is Apr.-06 to Sept.-06. 2. I have heard both sides. The plea of the assessees for reworking out of the penalty for the reason that penalty at the rate of 2% has been wrongly applied for the entire period to arrive at the quantum of penalty while liability to penalty arises only if the assessees do not pay even after receipt of the service tax from their clients. The assessees collected service tax from their customers only during the period from Oct.-06 to Oct.-07 and, therefore, they rightly submit that penalty requires to be recalculated as every day rate has been applied by the authorities below, right from Oct.-06. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order only insofar as it relates to penalty under Section 76 and direct reworking of the penalty amount in the light of the fact that the entire amount of service tax was not co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sivabala Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the respondent assessee is the wife of Mr. S.D.Rajandran, an officer in M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. She is the younger sister of Mrs. Prema Dyaneswaran, w/o Mr. Dyaneswaran. Mr. Dyaneswaran was an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Services and was the then Chairman of M/s. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.,2. There was a search on Mr. Dyaneswaran under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 19/20.01.1996. In connection with the said search, the residence of Mr. S.D. Rajendran, the husband of the respondent assessee was also searched.3. According to the appellant, number of documents were seized in the course of the search evidencing the fact that the respondent assessee had 'undisclosed income' assessable to tax under Section 158BD read with Section 158BC. Proceedings were initiated under Section 158BD and notice under Section 158BC dated 07....
A.V.Anbu Chezhian .. Vs. P.Ambikadass ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.11 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vedarnayam and the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein filed an application before the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C., summoning documents such as bills, accounts and income-tax returns relating to the period 1995-2004 to be produced by the complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had preferred this criminal revision petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the complaint, the cheque was given by the petitioner to the respondent and the cheque amount was Rs.10,50,000/-. The petitioner/accused was doing business with the respondent/complainant for the past ten years and he had paid all the dues and only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is due. The bl...
Abdul Rahman ... Vs. the Superintending Engineer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20 September, 2002 on the file of the first respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 16 February, 2002. The matter relates to demand of extra levy on account of theft of energy.THE FACTS:-2. The petitioner was running a plastic industry in the name and style of M/s. MAR PLASTICS at No.2/51, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore. He was granted service connection by the electricity department and he was assigned meter No.678. The petitioner has been using the service connection in connection with his industry and no complaint was made against him at any point of time.3. While the matters stood thus, the service connection was inspected by the officials of the electricity department, Kuniamuthur on 21 December, 2001. During the time of inspection it was found that the meter box seal was found missing and the sealing wires of the MRT seals at both sides of the meter were found cut at one end. T^h...
K.Chandrasekar .... Vs. K.Bhuvaneshwari @ K.Radhika ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. This Appeal is preferred against the order of Family Court in FCOP.No.2277 of 2005 whereby the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai has dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant-Husband to declare the marriage as null and void. Unsuccessful husband is the Appellant.2. When the Appeal came up for admission, stating that the matter is compromised between the parties, onbehalf of the Appellant and Respondent, compromise memo was filed. Today [24.06.2010], both the Appellant/Husband and Respondent/Wife were present in the Court. They were also represented by Mr.Srinath Sridevan, counsel for Appellant and Ms.Rukmani, counsel for Respondent.3. Both Appellant and Respondent have stated that they have willingly and voluntarily compromised the matter and that they have also understood the terms of compromise. Both parties have agreed that the Appeal may be disposed in terms of the compromise memo.4. While so recording the compromise, Respondent-wife has stated that there is a c...
M.Shahul Hameed. Vs. the Secretary to Government, Home Department, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the validity of notification G.O.Ms.No.1224 dated 24.09.2008 in and by which an amendment is issued to Rule (2) of the Special Rules in the Tamil Nadu Fire Service in respect of recruitment to the post of Director of fire service.2. The petitioner herein is, as on the date of filing of the writ petition and as on today, working as the Deputy Director and the petitioner is having more meritorius service throughout his carrier. The next promotional cadre is Director of Fire Service. There are two sources of recruitment to the post of Director, Fire Service, (a) Promotion from the post of Deputy Director, Fire Service (or) (b) Recruited by transfer from Indian Administration Service (or) Indian Police Service. According to the petitioner, the promotional post is to be necessarily filled up by resorting the first source of recruitment i.e., Promotion from the post of Deputy D...
Aziz Ahmed . Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th December, 2007 passed in W.P.No. 28837 of 2005 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the order passed in a departmental proceeding pursuant to a departmental enquiry.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Secretariat in the Agricultural Department in the year 1964. By virtue of promotions, the petitioner finally joined as Under Secretary (Mining) in the Industries Department, Secretariat, some time in the year 1994. Later on, he was promoted as Deputy Secretary to Government and posted in the same department. When the appellant was due to retire on 30th June, 1996, he was put under suspension on 18th June, 1996 in contemplation of a departmental proceedings. The appellant challenged the said order of suspension before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4087 of 1996, and the Tribunal eventu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »