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.
S.Gananatha Perumal ... Vs. S.Valliappan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1998 made in O.S.No.2265 of 1997 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The following are the averments in the plaint succinctly stated:2.1. On 07.07.1980, the defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the property in question for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after completing all the formalities, besides producing encumbrance certificate for 15 years and to hand over the title deeds. Pursuant to the agreement, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff. While so, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to produce the original title deeds and also patta pertaining to the property in question. 2.2. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff gave a telegram to the defendant calling upon him to produce and deposit all original title de...
Nivi Knit Fashions. Vs. N.Rajkumar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1. There is no representation for the respondent. The submissions made by Mr.B.Nambiselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.2.This petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking an order quashing the criminal proceedings initiated on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet in C.C.No.218 of 2006 based on the complaint of the respondent herein preferred under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Nivi Knit Fashions, a proprietary concern and its Proprietor E.Mohanraj are the two persons arrayed as accused in the above said case. The present petition has been filed in the name of Nivi Knit Fashions represented by its proprietor E.Mohanraj.3.The short point that has arisen in this petition is, "whether the prosecution of a proprietary concern in its name apart form prosecuting the proprietor is maintainable?"4.The same is...
O.C. Periyasamy .. Vs. D. Venkatesan @ Ravi ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After the said complaint being filed, it was posted on 12.05.2010 for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. As the complainant was not present, it was adjourned to 17.05.2010. Even on that day, since the complainant was not present, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, the present criminal revision has been preferred before this Court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was attending the Court regularly without fail, but he could not appear before the Court on 12.05.2010 and 17.05.2010, as he fell sick. Therefore, the complainant has not filed any application before learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant must be given a chance to proceed...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Raghav Industries Ltd. and O ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The benefit of abatement of 75% from the gross amount available under Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.04 extended by the lower appellate authority is challenged by the Revenue in the present appeals on the ground that the assessees did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Board’s circular dt. 27.7.2005 and did not produce declarations of GTA. 2. I have heard both sides and perused the records. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessees had produced copies of declarations obtained from GTA. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd. Final Order No.A/2852/2008 dt. 26.12.2008 in coming to the conclusion that abatement is admissible to the assessees. He has also concluded that there is no allegation to the effect that GTAs have availed credit on inputs and capital goods or that they have availed the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20.6.03 and has therefore held that the benefit of abatement...
Shree Ganesh Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The claim of the assessees for refund of duty on goods imported vide Bill of Entry dt. 29.12.90 has been rejected on the ground that the burden cast upon the assessees to prove that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to others was not discharged by them. 2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. Hence I proceed to hear the ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. I find that the before the authorities below, in spite of ample time granted, the assessees did not produce any documents to substantiate their claim that they had not passed on the duty incidence to their buyers. Their claim therefore remains unsubstantiated. Even before the Tribunal, they have not produced any documents to discharge the burden cast upon them. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
El.P.Em. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The claim of the assessees for refund of duty has been rejected on the ground that they had not crossed the bar of unjust enrichment as they had not discharged the burden of showing that they had not passed on incidence of duty to others. 2. Although the assessees have asked for adjournment, I see no reason to keep the appeal pending in the light of the fact that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessees by Tribunal’s Final Order No.548/2010 dt. 15.4.2010 and hence I proceeded to decide the case after hearing ld.SDR and perusing the records. 3. The identical issue in the case of the same assessees has been dealt with in great detail by the Tribunal’s order cited supra holding that refund is admissible to the assessees as they are not required to discharge the burden of showing that they had not passed on incidence of duty as the assessment during the period in dispute was required to be treated as provisional. 4. Following the ratio of the order cited supra, I se...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The issue in dispute in the present cases namely as to whether service tax is leviable on services received from abroad for the period prior to 18.4.06, stands decided against the Revenue by the apex court’s decision in Union of India Vs Indian National Ship Owners Association [2010 (17) STR J57 (SC)], upholding the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that service recipient in India is liable to service tax for services received from abroad only w.e.f. 18.4.06 after the enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable in the present case, as the period is prior to 18.4.06, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....
A.N.Palaniappan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20.6.2003 has been denied to the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the benefit is admissible to materials such as patches etc. consumed during the course of carrying out the activity of retreading of tyres (the activity liable to tax is under the heading Maintenance and Repair Services), in the light of the apex court’s decision in Commissioner Vs Shilpa Color Lab [2009 (14) STR J163 (SC)] which has been followed by the Tribunal in a series of decisions including Chakita Ranjini Udyam Vs CCE Mysore [2009 (16) STR 172]. The adjudicating authority having accepted that the assessees were paying sales tax on the materials consumed obviates the necessity for remanding the for verification as to whether sales tax liablity has been discharged by the assessees. 3. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. Goyal Ispat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand of Rs.4,40,097/- under the provisions of Section 11A together with interest under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on shortage of goods found during stock verification, which order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the case of the department is made out on the basis of unretracted statement of Shri J.Balaji, Manager of the assessee-company and the mahazar, clearly showing shortage. The assessee’s defence which has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that no proper physical verification was conducted and therefore the shortage cannot be ascertained. However, I find that mahazar clearly recording the shortage has been signed by Mr.Balaji and there is nothing in the cross examination against correct recording of the shortage. Shri S.Krishnan, Inspector of Central Excise ha...
C.Subramanian (Died), and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government Housing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. This writ petition was originally filed by eight (8) persons. The petitioners 1 and 4 viz., C.Subramanian and C.Arumugam died during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, their legal representatives, who are petitioners 9 to 14 were subsequently added. This writ petition has been filed challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act under G.O.Ms.No.474, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28.11.2000 and the consequential proceedings.2. The land in question comprised in Survey No.216/1 at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk is owned by the petitioners. With a view to acquire the same for public purpose, a notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as Act) under G.O.Ms.No.367, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 15.03.1991. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24.04.1991. On 03.05.1991, it was published in a local daily viz., Pirpagal (gpw;gfy;) and in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »