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.
R.Velari Fernando (Deceased), and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.3.2003, by which the second respondent set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 6.3.2001, confirming the grant of patta in favour of the deceased first petitioner.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased the lands in Survey No.1490/A/1B in Mudivaithanandal village, Tuticorin Taluk, by sale deed dated 2.9.1982 measuring an extent of 6.40 acres. The Tahsildar, Tuticorin, by an order dated 27.1.1983 granted patta in favour of the petitioner and patta pass Book was also issued. During 1986, when updation of land revenue scheme was implemented, notices were issued to the various pattadars calling for objections if any in cancelling the new sub-divisions in the said survey number. Thereafter a patta pass book No.1385 was issued in favour of the petitioner for the total ext...
Murugesa Mudaliar (Died), and ors. Vs. Ramu Mudaliar, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The First Appellant/First Defendant (during his life time and later Deceased) and the Second Appellant/Second Defendant have projected this Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1996 in A.S.No.179 of 1994 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in the Judgment in A.S.No.179 of 1994 dated 25.03.1996 has among other things observed that 'the suit properties have not been made mention off in Ex.B2 Settlement Deed dated 07.05.1975 and also that the Defendants have not established that they have been in enjoyment of the suit properties and instead, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has established through documents that he has a right over the suit properties and also, he has filed Receipts to prove that he has been in continuous enjoyment of the suit properties and resultantly, held that the First Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to get the re...
P.S.Murthy, and ors. Vs. the State Represented by Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The final report was filed by the Inspector of Police-CBI, Chennai, totally against 15 accused for offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.2. The Accused 1 to 14 filed petitions before the trial Court seeking discharge, but the petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the above criminal revision petitions before this Court.3. It is brought to the notice of this Court now that P.C.Shaw(A.1) and BMN.Rao (A.10) have died.4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that crude oil produced by ONGC at Ravva 10 and 17 Offshore platforms were required to be transported from Surasanyanam to H.P.C.L refnery at Vizag. Since the oil coordination committee recommended for the transport of crude oil by sea route to avoid pollution and road congestion, ONGC invited open tenders to transport the crude oil by sea route. For this tender, a mimimum experience of two years of sea transportation ...
Subbammal ... Vs. Arumugam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.1996 made in A.S.No.12 of 1995 on the file of Second Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.2. The First Appellate Court Viz., the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in the Judgment in A.S.No.12 of 1995 dated 23.01.1996 has among other things observed that Palani has got the property with condition and enjoyed the same and further the Palani's sons Karuppan, Nagan, Arumugam and Bannari till 29.04.1987 have got the suit property to enjoy with certain conditions and later the suit property belonged to them and their heirs absolutely. Further, the First Appellate Court has also held that Karuppal her sons Nagan, Arumugam and Bannari have obtained a loan of Rs.700/- from Marakkal and created a registered Mortgage Deed dated 11.05.1959 in respect of the suit property. Also, the First Appellate Court has held that the persons who executed Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 Sale Dee...
M/S. Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Cbe) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President 1. The assessees herein who are manufacturers of textile machinery parts sent cenvat-credited raw materials/inputs/semi-finished goods to certain job workers by following prescribed procedure. Certain inputs were put into the stream of manufacture by the job workers but found to be defective and hence were returned to the assessees as they could not be used further for the manufacture of final products. The assessees raised debit notes on the job workers for the loss incurred due to the fault of the job workers. Show-cause notice dated 18.04.2007 was issued proposing recovery of Rs.52,268/- being the amount equivalent to CENVAT credit on the raw material and raw material contained in the finished goods, together with interest, by applying the extended period of limitation, and also proposing imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirm the demand together with interest and impose penalty o...
M/S. Krishna International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President 1. Confiscation of export goods described as “Buff Sole Leather” on the ground that the goods do not conform to the definition of “finished leather” as per the CLRI report due to absence of required degree of tanning, with an option of redemption and imposition of penalty, is challenged in the present appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The assesees are correct in their contention that in the absence of any prescription of the degree/percentage of tanning in the definition of “finished leather”, the goods cannot be held to be other than finished leather. There is no other dispute as regards the goods in question. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. M/S. Tanfac Industries ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President 1. According to the Revenue, the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable against the assessees as they are clearing “Hydrofluoric Acid” and “Sulphuric Acid” both on payment of duty as well as under exemption in terms of Notification No.10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, and are therefore required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted final product, as they are not maintaining separate accounts. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that both the products are excisable/dutiable. It is only when the same goods are cleared to certain categories of customers stipulated in the notification above mentioned, that they do not attract duty liability. This does not make the goods in question, non-dutiable or exempt. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Tribunal in Greaves Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2007 (211) E.L.T.563 (Tri.-Chennai)...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. S.V. Muthukum ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-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 pay Rs.12,808/- towards the claim amount, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.19.01.2006 in O.P.82/2005.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant being the owner of Maruti Omni, bearing Registration No.TN-07-P-3596, insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 4.10.2003 to 3.10.2004. This vehicle met with an accident on 30.09.2003, in which, the vehicle also sustained damage, for which, claim was lodged in the month of November 2003. The opposite party instead of settling the entire amount, as estimated for the damage, offered to pay only a sum of Rs.5,020/-...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. R. Arumugam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-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 parties to pay Rs.150000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and 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.28.11.2005 in C.O.P.No.140/2005.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant 2. Facts leading to this appeal The complainant/ respondent, had taken a family mediclaim policy, with the opposite party, from the period 15.11.00, which was renewed periodically, covering the period from 15.11.2001 to 15.11.2002, for which premium also paid, without default. 3. As advised by the Doctor, the complainant had taken treatment, as inpatient in R.S. Trinity Acute Care Hospital, Mylapore, for heart ailment, and he was also operated, incurring an expense of Rs.150000/- and thereafter disch...
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Through Its Regional Manager (Mar ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
(The 1st Respondents as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant and 1st Respondent /Complainant, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation. 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.03.7.2003 in COP No.209/2001.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant has filed a case, on the following grounds, seeking a direction, for the payment of Rs.5 lakhs, leveling deficiency/unfair trade practice, against the opposite parties. 3. The complainant, in order to construct a building, had purchased 400 bags of cement, on 19.9.00, and 29.10.00, for a sum of Rs.71,884/-, from the 3rd opposite party/dealer, the cement being manufactured by opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant, following the procedure, using the good ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »