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.Krishnaveni, and ors. Vs. Muthugajalakshmi, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.15445 of 2004 in O.S.No.3343 of 1998 , this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: Earlier this court vide order dated 09.06.2010 passed order condoning the delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition and in that the facts are found detailed and delineated. However the operative portion of the said order of this court is reproduced here under for recollection and ready reference: "8. Be that as it may, at present I am not inclined to probe further into the matter in view of the trite proposition of law that if an exparte decree in a specific performance suit is set aside at the instance of one of the joint owners of the suit property, then certainly that benefit should enure to the benefit of other defen...
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sms Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
After hearing both sides on the applications for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage and hence proceed to take up the appeals with the consent of both sides, after rejecting the stay applications of the Revenue. The direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders for remand of the case to the lower authority is challenged by the Revenue, on the ground that after amendment of the statutory provisions, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer has the power of remand. 2. I find that this issue stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Medico Labs - 2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.), holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have the power of remand even after the amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court’s decision cited supra has been followed by the Tribunal in CCE, Pondicherr...
M/S. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. Cc, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
The only issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether ships demurrage charges are includible in the assessable value of the goods. The above issue stands decided against the Revenue by the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. CC, Calcutta reported in 2000 (122)ELT 615 (Tri.-LB), which has been upheld by the apex Court in CC Vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (165) ELT 257 (SC). Following the ratio of the apex Court’s decision cited supra, I set aside the inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value of the assessee’s goods and allow the appeal. The differential duty as a result of calculating the CandF price at 48.27 US $ per MT as against the declared CandF price of 44.71 US $ per MT is upheld as it is not the subject matter in the present appeal....
M/S. S.P.K. Balakrishnan and Co. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
The demand of service tax of Rs. 32,252/- together with interest and penalty of equal amount (tax demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees were availing goods transport services) is challenged by the assessees. The assessees have filed an application for raising additional grounds that the services received by them were from individual goods transport owners and goods transport operators and not from Goods Transport Agency and therefore, service tax is not leviable in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshminarayana Mining Co., Vs. CST, Bangalore 2009 (16) STR 691 (Tri.-Bang.). Since the additional ground is based upon the precedent decision of the Tribunal, I permit the assessees to raise the above. 2. The plea that the service was not rendered by the Goods Transport Agency but by individual truck owners and truck operators is raised in the appeal for the first time and hence requires verification. 3. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order a...
Dr.D.Gowri Sankar ... Vs. National Board of Examinations, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The petitioner is a Doctor, and he passed M.B.B.S. Degree in the year 1999. Thereafter, he applied for Diplomate of National Board Course with the first respondent. He appeared for the Primary screening test that was conducted in January 2000. The first respondent issued a certificate dated 17.04.2000 that he successfully qualified in the primary examination conducted by the Board in January 2000. 2. Thereafter, he got admitted for training in the second respondent College from 01.10.2001. He underwent training for three years up to 30.09.2004. On completion of three years training, he appeared for the final theory examinations during the years 2005 to 2007 (two semesters per year) he failed in all those examinations.3. He applied to the first respondent to appear for the final theory examinations that was to be conducted during June 2008, as he failed in the examinations as stated above. The first respondent sent a letter dated 12.05.2008 seeking clarification that the training com...
K.Kannan .. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The writ petition is filed against the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in which the second respondent has negatived the petitioners representation to absolve him on administrative side.2. The writ petitioner was originally employed in the respondent Corporation as helper in Modern Rice Mill (herein after referred as 'MRM') at Erukkur, Nagai District and he was at his request transferred as Office Assistant on General Administrative wing to Nagai Regional Office during 2004. While he was continuing so, the petitioner along with several others was transferred as helper to MRM, Sitharkadu. The order of transfer was not given effect to, insofar as the petitioner by memo dated 06.06.2008 issued by the first respondent and the petitioner was redeployed as Office Assistant in the office of the Senior Regional Manager, Nagai Region and thereafter posted as Office Assistant in the unit office, Mayiladuthurai, thus con...
A.Munusamy .. Vs. the Joint Commissioner Hr and Ce (Admn) Dept., and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The writ petition is directed against the instruction given by the first respondent to the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE and Fit person/Executive Officer, A/m.Mahaveer Anajanayar Thiru Koil, VOC Park, Erode, who are the respondents 2 and 3 herein for taking over the charge of A/m Sozheswarar Temple situated at Cauvery River land, Karungalapalayam, Erode.2. The brief facts which are relevant herein are:The petition mentioned Sozheswarar Temple is situated at Erode. The temple is in existence from time immemorial and it was in dilapidated condition and the renovation work of the temple was adopted by one committee called Sozheswarar Alaya committee having the petitioner's father as its President and temple thiruppani was held during 1971 with the funds collected from the worshippers and the same committee took over the management of the temple affairs and continued to look after the same.3. Whileso, the second respondent h...
Juditha Rosaly Bosco, and ors. Vs. M/S Kajaraj and Co, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 20.08.2008, passed in E.P.No.1 of 2007 in O.S.No.1538 of 1980 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court at Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Succinctly and precisely, the relevant facts shorn of unnecessary details, would run thus: The deceased revision petitioner/Benjamin filed E.P.No.1 of 2007 before the Executing court for obtaining delivery of possession of the immovable property concerned, consequent upon the decree passed in specific performance of the agreement to sell. Indubitably and indisputably, in pursuance of the said decree the sale deed was executed, but as on the date of the filing of the EP for delivery, the sale deed was not released by the Registrar concerned on certain grounds. The Executing Court dismissed that execution application on the sole ground that there was no registered sale deed before it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision is filed on the m...
P.Deivasigamani ... Vs. Asha Siraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.37 of 2007 in O.S.No.6 of 2005, by the learned Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-II), Gobichettipalayam, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Shorn of details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance on an agreement to sell which emerged between the petitioner and the respondent herein; whereupon the matter was dealt with by the lower Court and ex parte decree was passed consequent upon the failure of the revision petitioner/defendant in participating the proceedings. Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.37 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 61 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex parte decree set aside. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed it.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied wit...
Adhikesava Gounder .. Vs. Munusami Gounder, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.6.2008, made in A.S.No.19 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.4.2007, made in O.S.No.223 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi.2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.223 of 2005, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, in respect of the suit schedule properties.3. The plaintiff had stated that items 1 and 2 of the suit properties had been purchased by the plaintiff, by way of a sale deed, dated 26.11.1973, from one Dhandapani. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Item 3 of the suit properties, with an extent of 0.15 cents had, originally, belonged to the first ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »