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.
D.K.Sekar .. Vs. S.K.Natarajan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, questioning the order of the Court below dated 4.2.2009 made in I.A.No.244 of 2005 in O.S.No.66 of 2005, rejecting the plea for an injunction to restrain the respondents herein from disturbing his possession of the suit property.2. The plaintiff/appellant claims that under a deed executed by the first defendant as evident from the materials, in the month of Adi, 2000, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property on an annual lease rental of 6 bags of paddy or its value per acre. The plaintiff had been paying the above annual rent regularly. Thereafter, respondents-1 and 2 agreed to sell the property to him for a consideration of Rs.6,44,000/-. Respondents-1 and 2 had already received an advance of Rs.4,30,000/- on 18.11.2002. They had agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,14,000/- within a period of one year and have the sale deed executed at his costs. An agreement was duly executed in this regard between the parties. The ap...
A.Saravanan ... Vs. M.V.Nalllaiya Asari ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority-Principal Sub Judge, Salem, in R.C.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2004 confirming the order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the Rent Controller-I Additional District Munsif, Salem, in R.C.O.P.Nos.5 and 39 of 1999, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revisions would run thus:(a) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.5/99 invoking Section 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), so as to evict the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of damage having been caused to the demised premises by the tenant. (b) Whereas the tenant filed the RCOP No.39 of 1999 by invoking Section 22 of the Act with the following prayer:"Therefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Honourable Court may b...
P.Mannarsswamy ... Vs. Margadarsi Chits Limited.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 06.08.2008 passed in E.A.No.1691 of 2008 in E.P.No.170 of 2008 in ARC No.665 of 2004 by the X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision wound run thus: The respondent/decree holder filed the E.P.No.170 of 2008 so as to recover the amount due payable under the Award passed by the authority concerned in ARC No.665 of 2004. While so, E.A.No.1691 of 2008 was filed under Section 47 of CPC by the revision petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor No.2 on the ground that the respondent/decree holder could not pick and choose D2 to recover the entire amount from him without even proceeding as against the principal debtor, namely Judgment Debtor No.1/D1. The lower Court dismissed the said E.A., as against which this revision is focussed on the main ground that the Judgment Debtor No.1/D1 ...
M.Manrosi ... Vs. the Hereditary Trustee Arulmigu Thiruvaleeswarar Koi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Revenue Court, Cuddalore in summarily returning Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2009 and connected applications filed by the revision petitioner in PTA No.238 of 2003 pending on the file of the Revenue Court, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent herein filed application under Section 151 of CPC r/w Rule 44 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural lands) Rules of 1962 before the Revenue Court/an Authorised officer and it appears as per the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, an exparte order of eviction was passed as against the revision petitioner; however, the revision petitioner came to know about the same, according to her, only during the year 2009; whereupon an application under Section 5 of ...
Sumathi, and ors. Vs. N.Balakrishnan, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. For the death of deceased Lakshmanan in road traffic accident on 16.07.2001 in M.C.O.P.No.5308/2001, Tribunal/Chief Small Cause Court, Chennai awarded compensation of Rs.9,79,020/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, wife, minor son and parents of deceased have filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Brief facts are that on 16.07.2001 at about 7.15 A.M., the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-02 H 8356 along Turnbulls road, Nandanam, Chennai from south to north direction. In the junction road, after getting signal, deceased took a right turn along Chamiers road and proceeded east to west on the above said road. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TNN 2052 who drove the same behind in a rash and negligent manner dashed on the rear side of the motor cycle. Due to the impact, Lakshmanan rider of the motorcycle [deceased Lakshmanan] sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Government General Hosp...
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Vs. M/S. Esquire Translam Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. In view of the common questions of law involved in both the appeals, they have been taken up together for disposal. T.C.(A) No.546 of 2010 pertains to the assessment year 20012002 and T.C.(A) No.547 of 2010 pertains to the assessment year 20052006 respectively.2. The orders passed by the Assessing Authority holding that the goods manufactured by the assessees would not cover the entitlement of exemption under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, have been reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed a further appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal, in turn, has confirmed the said orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence the present appeals.3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by formulating the following substantial question of law:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled deduction under Section 80IB of...
M/S. Delphi Tvs Diesel Systems Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
Heard both sides. Shri M. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellants have reversed the credit taken wrongly before utilization of the same. As such, he argues that no interest is payable in such a case. In this regard he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indo Shell Mould Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2010 (253) ELT 799. 2. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran. As the issue is no longer res integra, following the cited decision of the Tribunal, I hold that interest is not payable when the credit is reversed before utilization. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/S. Invensys India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has dropped the demand on the ground that the demand notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation. The Department is in appeal against the dropping of the demand. I find that the show-cause notice nowhere invokes the larger period of demand nor there is any allegation of suppression, mis-statement or any other violation requiring invocation of the larger period of limitation. As such, the order passed by the lower appellate authority requires no interference. The Department’s appeal is dismissed....
M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Cce (Ltu), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants had reversed the credit taken wrongly before its utilization. In an earlier appeal, the lower appellate authority had held that interest is not payable in such cases and his order was upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 471/2009 dated 14.7.2009. Consequently the appellants filed a refund application in respect of the interest already paid. This time around, the lower appellate authority has passed that the refund is not due to the appellants which is contrary to his earlier order. As such, the same cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
M/S. Akshera Papers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
Heard both sides. Both sides confirm that the assessments of the relevant Bills of Entry were done applying the correct rate of duty. However, the appellants had paid higher amount as per the drafts prepared applying the pre-revised rates. In view of the fact that the assessment was correctly done, there is no question of revising the assessment or appealing against the assessment. Having paid higher amount, the appellants are entitled for refund of the excess duty paid. Since the imported material has been captively consumed, they are required to demonstrate to the original authority by production of Chartered Accountant’s certificate and balance sheet reflecting the fact that the excess amount of duty has not been paid on to the buyers of their goods. As such, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision. He shall allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and also an o...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »