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.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ltu, Chennai Vs. Chemp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
On hearing both sides and noting that the amount of credit extended to the assessees, which is challenged by the department, is only Rs.4,710/-, I dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the case....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Rotork Control (India) Pvt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
The Revenue is in appeal against the extending of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services of maintenance of water coolers installed in the factory of the assessees and house keeping services. 2. I have heard both sides. I hold that the lower appellate authority has rightly extended the benefit of credit of tax paid on the above mentioned services for the reason that provision and maintenance of water coolers is an essential requirement under the provisions of the Factories Act and house keeping services are also very necessary and vital for keeping the factory in good condition. My view finds support from the decision of the Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Aurangabad [2010 (18) STR 600]. 3. Following the ratio of the above, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Jsw Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
MODVAT credit of Rs.1,62,225/- was disallowed by the Asst. Commissioner vide his order dt.30.11.2007. Penal action against the assessees was also taken. The ground for denial of credit was that the assessees produced only photocopies of the original invoices on the strength of which credit was taken but did not produce original of the transporters copy. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that duty paid nature of the goods and receipt of the goods in the factory of the assessees was not disputed. The report of the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem (dt. 17.12.08) also confirmed that the goods in question had been used in the factory of the assessees. The lower appellate authority, therefore, set aside the Asst. Commissioner’s order denying credit on the ground of non-production of the transporters copy of the invoices in original; however, he directed the lower authority to conduct necessary verification regarding duty paid nature of the goods before allowing rec...
John Bosco .. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and Ors,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as secondary Grade Teacher or in an alternative suitable employment with all service and monetary benefits with effect from 07.09.1992 in the light of Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, basing on the 'status' recommendation made by the 4th respondent pursuant to his proceedings made on 06.12.2001.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher in 5th respondent school from 21.10.1972 in a leave vacancy. The said appointment was approved by the Education Department authorities for the purpose of payment of salary. His temporary appointment was extended from time to time. By Order dated 04.07.1975 the petitioner was appointed in a permanent vacancy (retirement vacancy). The said appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvannam...
G.Sathyavani ... Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.1486 of 1999 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.43331 of 2006.2.The petitioner married one R.Govindarajan, who served as Higher Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Middle School of Pudhuvayal Village in Gummudipoondi Union. Before her marriage with one R.Govindarajan, the said R.Govindarajan was already married to one S.Vijayalakshmi. Unfortunately, the said Vijayalakshmi died in the year 1980. Finally, the petitioner's husband R.Govindarajan also died on 14.07.1997. Before the death of her husband, she has driven out of the matrimonial home and, therefore, the petitioner filed Matrimonial Case No.1 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- from the deceased. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur by order dated 18.04.1996, allowed the petitioner's claim by awarding of Rs.500/- as maintena...
Kk Flats (P) Ltd. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. These four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are against the orders of the Inspector General of Registration dated 18.5.2010. The issue raised in these appeals are common and hence, a common order is passed.2. The appellants herein purchased the lands in question which are situated near the Vaigai river bank. The total extent of land purchased under individual sale deeds in the year 2005 of varying extent in respect of all these appeals is 4 acres and 75 cents in Sathamangalam, Madurai District.3. The admitted fact herein is that the lands in question are on the bank of river Vaigai on the way to Anna Nagar in Madurai. The lands are in a low lying area, 12 to 15 feet below the normal prevailing conditions of other lands. There is no proper approach road to reach the said lands. Based on the document value of the year 1995, executed by the very same vendors as arrived at by the Inspector General of Registration, fixing the value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre vide order dated 10.11.1995, adopti...
Govindan @ Govindasamy Moopanar. Vs. Anbazhagan ... and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.01.1996 made in A.S.No.25 of 1992 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur.2. The Learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur in the Judgment in A.S.No.25 of 1992 dated 11.01.1996 has among other things observed that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to obtain a relief of specific performance in respect of the sixth item of the property' and upheld the decision of the trial Court in regard to the dismissal of the suit in respect of the sixth item, but in respect of the items 1 to 5 has observed that 'the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit but the conclusion of the trial Court in decreeing the suit in respect of the items 1 to 5 of the suit property is the wrong one and dismissed the appeal.'3. Further, the Learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur while dismissing the Appeal A.S.25/1992 (filed by the Plaintiff in respect of the sixth item of the plaint schedule propert...
Kaluva Kounder (Died), and ors. Vs. Mannankatti, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. The case set out in the plaint is shortly as follows:-The suit property originally belonged to Surendra Village. Before 80 years, one Narayana Gounder was in possession of the suit property and after his death, his legal heirs Seena Gounder, Thoppala Gounder, Venkatachala Gounder partitioned the property orally and the suit property was allotted to the share of Seena Gounder. After his death, his son Kuppa Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after him, his legal heir the Plaintiff/1st Respondent is in possession of the same. The suit property is comprised in Old S.No.19/A (Paimash 609) measuring an extent of 100 cents and the suit property was reclassified as grama natham in RS.No.331/1. Since, the suit property is a grama natham, there was no tax assessment after its reclassification as Natham. and the predecessors of the Plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of suit property by way of Kaichathu. In the said oral partition, sons of the Narayana Gou...
M.Buhari, .. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed against the order of detention passed by the first respondent in respect of the detenu M.Buhari under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The said order of detention was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the first respondent that clamping such an order became necessary for preventing the detenu from smuggling of goods in future. The said order of detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 is challenged in this Habeas Corpus Petition by the detenu himself.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, can be briefly, stated thus:-One Shahul Hameed holding Passport No.E1079207 dated 20.03.2002 was caught by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Coimbatore when they checked his baggage based on specific intelligence that he was attempting to smuggle huge quantity of Ketamine Hydrochloride keeping the same concealed in his baggage. On being questioned, he revealed the involvement of the petitioner...
M.P.Rao ... Vs. the Director General, Central Industrial Security Forc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 3rd respondent which declared the petitioner's absence from duty from 30.01.2005 to 14.05.2009. The said intervening period from the date of compulsory retirement from service to the date of rejoining of service was treated as 'Dies Non' for all purposes as envisaged in Rule 55 of CISF Rules 2001. By the said order he was also denied pay and allowances for the said period and his representations dated 13.07.2009 and 26.10.2009 were also rejected by the 3rd respondent.2. The petitioner was enlisted as Sub-Inspector in the year 1985 at Chennai and later on he was transferred to Visakhapattinam during the month of July, 2003. The petitioner was charged with four charges on 12.11.2003 given under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001. The charges are relating to for letting out a vehicle which carried out pilferage of BF Coke on 11.07.2003 and four officials were also charged.3. An Enquiry was conducted and all the charges were proved against t...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »