Chennai Court July 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.Abiq Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. the Appellate Authority, Additional D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the main appeal pending in F.No.11/225/05-06/FCA-1 on the file of the 1st Respondent without insisting upon any bank guarantee. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner secured an order from U.A.E. for the export of 3000 numbers of school bags. Thereafter the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for issuance of an advance license for import of goods necessary for the manufacture of the export goods namely school bags. The 2nd Respondent issued a quantity based advance licence dated 25.10.1994 . As per the licence, the petitioner was permitted to import Nylon Cloth with export obligation to export the finished product. The period within which the export obligation had to be complied with was extended up to 24.10.1996 and the license was revalidated by the 2nd respondent up to 31.3.1997. The petitioner had filed the ...
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. S and S Power Switchgear Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. This appeal is against the order passed in a petition filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant was the petitioner in the Original Petition before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator.2. It is seen from the facts herein that the first respondent herein is the successful bidder as regards the contract given by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The present appellant is the successor-in-interest of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, who originally granted the contract. The contract related to supply of isolators and insulators to Neyveli, Salem and Trichur 400 KV switching stations. After series of discussions, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NLC') issued letter of Intent on 19.7.1988 to the first respondent. A formal agreement was entered into between NLC and the first respondent on 23.2.1989. The duration of the contract was 20 months from the date of Letter of Intent, which me...
T.P.Jothi Prakash @ R.Prabhu .. Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The detenu T.P.Jothi Prakash @ R.Prabhu has challenged the order of detention in G.O.No.SR.1/461-9/2009 Public (SC) Department, dated 23.9.2009, made by the first respondent detaining him under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 2. The facts which led to detention, in brief, are as follows:T.P.Jothi Prakash @ R.Prabhu is the proprietor of M/s. Deepak Enterprises at No.24, Avoor Muthiah Street, New Washermenpet, Chennai and he filed export documents in respect of two shipping bills pertaining to four containers, which were declared to contain 2000 bags of 50 kgs. each of uncrushed non-iodised industrial salt for export to Malaysia. On examination of the four containers on 12.5.2008, two containers were found fully stuffed with wooden logs believed to be red sanders and the remaining two containers were found stuffed with light yellow coloured HDPE bags containing salt. On verification of the exporter's address, i...
M.Vetri Selvan. Vs. Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation by an Advocate, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to arrange "public hearings" on the Civil Liabilities for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 at all State Head Quarters in the country and at all the places where the nuclear installations are in existence in the country before the introduction of the Bill in the parliament. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the second respondent published a advertisement in the English Daily "The Hindu" dated 24.06.2010, inviting written comments/suggestions either in English or in Hindi on the Civil Liabilities for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 (for short, the bill). In the terms of the notification those, who are willing to appear before the committee for oral evidence, besides submitting the memoranda may indicate so, In the response to the notification the petitioner is stated to have submitted his memoranda through e-mail on 06.07.2010. The grievance ...
E-2593, Sakkankudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The writ petitions are filed against the order of the first respondent dated 22.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 in and under which the first respondent has issued necessary certificates to the District Collector to recover the money due to the third respondent/employee as per the award passed by the second respondent. 2. The third respondent/employee has approached the second respondent Tribunal with Claim petition under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of arrears of salary relating to different period as mentioned therein and the same are entertained as Claim petition Nos.53/2001, 117/2004, 20/1998 and 21/2007 respectively. All the applications were duly contested and disposed of separately on 24.12.2002, 18.04.2007, 01.06.2000, and 21.04.2007 respectively. Thereafter, the third respondent/employee approached the Government with applications under Section 33 C (1) for issuance of recovery certificate to the District Collector, to recover the amount due to h...
M/S. V.A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The petitioner herein is the owner of property on whose representation, the District Collector caused enquiry and preferred a complaint. A case has been registered in Crime No. 4 of 1998 by the CCB against one A.R. Sridharan then Village Administrative Officer(V.A.O), Adambakkam Village and others. On finding substance in the complaint, which informed of the first accused, a V.A.O, who while functioning towards fulfilling the purpose of the Abolition of Ryotwari Act, fabricated false government records, which were within his control to reflect the position that he and his family members were the owners of large extent of lands. A charge sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 468 r/w 471, 466 and 420, 167 and 109 IPC. The case is now pending trial in C.C. No. 321 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee No.II. The petitioner before us is the defacto complainant and what it is contended on his behalf that the offences committed by...
Rajendran ... Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The petitioner entered into service as Grade II Police Constable in Chennai City Armed Reserve in the year 1984. Later, he was upgraded as Head Constable in the year 1987. While so, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner in Crime No.789/2002 on the file of City Crime Branch, Chennai, alleging that he collected a sum of Rs.75,000/- from three persons namely M.Sarathi, Srikanth and Nagabooshanam assuring them to get appointment as Police Constable in the Police Department. Thereafter, the Department issued a charge memo dated 11.02.2002 in P.R.No.204/2002 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 (shortly "the Rules") on the same set of allegations. 2. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.170 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the charge memo dated 11.12.2002. The Tribunal, passed an order on 13.01.2003 refusing to quash the charge memo. However, the Tribunal observed th...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Greaves Cotton Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that Cenvat credit is admissible on Air Ticket Booking Service, subject to the condition that the journey is undertaken for business purpose only. 2. I have heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Fine Care Biosystems 2009 (16) STR 701 (Tri.-Ahmd.), while extending credit on Air Ticket Booking Service. The Revenue is not in a position to show that the decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case nor rely upon any decision to the contrary. Since the issue in dispute is covered by the Tribunal’s judgment cited supra, this is not a fit case for admission and accordingly, I decline to admit the appeal. For statistical purposes the appeal is dismissed....
C.Mahendiran. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer Nagapattinam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 1.12.2005. The petitioner is a holder of the contract carriage omni bus permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. On 18.6.2005, the vehicle was impounded at Porayar by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Mayiladuthurai, alleging that the vehicle has been used regularly for transporting patients to Vinayaga Mission Hospital. Since the vehicle was seized, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20224 of 2005 and this Court by an order dated 22.6.2005, directed the respondent to release the vehicle, with a condition that the vehicle should be produced before the respondent as and when required. 3. Thereafter, on 27.6.2005, the respondent issued a show cause notice demanding tax for the State of Tamil Nadu and the peti...
G.L.Desan, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. The petitioner, while serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, was issued with a charge memo dated 21.03.1996. In view of that, he was placed under suspension on 16.08.1995. The petitioner name was included at Sl.No.1 in the temporary panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category 2, for the year 1984-85 approved in G.O.Ms.No.1517, Home Department, dated 25.06.1985, along with his junior S.Govindarajan, who was included at Sl.No.2 in the same temporary panel. After his inclusion in the panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 1984-85, since he was placed under suspension on 16.08.1995, he was informed by the Government that his name could not be included in the regular panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in view of his suspension. However, the suspension order was revoked by the Government on 16.12.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to work as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the meanwhile, he was issued with a charge memo dated 21.03.1996 unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »