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.
J.Surianarayanan .. Vs. the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the impugned order passed in R.C.No.R.A.5(2)/110487/2005 A.A. No.223/2005 dated 03.10.2006, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in M.M. No.50934/2005K-3 dated 22.11.2005, cancelling the petitioner's Arms licence and quash the same.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for revolver licence on 29.01.1998 and after due enquiry, the second respondent District Collector, Coimbatore had granted him revolver licence namely licence No.2/99/Pollachi and the area of validity was restricted to Coimbatore District. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for extending the area of validi...
M.Muthupandian ... Vs. Superintendent of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
The petitioner was issued with a charge memo containing two charges.1. Reprehensible conduct in having left his Headquarters without prior permission while on ML on 28.03.92.2. Highly reprehensible conduct in having waylaid and assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan of Urkadu Village with hands and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood on 28.03.92 at 7.45 pm near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. Having not satisfied with the explanation, oral enquiry was held and the following 7 witnesses were examined.1. Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan Urkadu2. Arumugam S/o Palanisamy Thevar, Ambai3. Natarajan S/o Mookathaver, Urkadu4. Samikannu, Sub Inspector of Police, Ambai5. Thillai Chithambara, Govt. Medical Officer, Ambai6. Tr.Samudrakani, Sub Inspector of Police, VK Puram7. Tr. Karpagavinayagam, Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram.After completing the enquiry, the enquiry offi...
M.Balakrishnan .... Vs. Tmt.Jeeva Mercy Kamala, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Inveighing the orders dated 31.3.2003 and 05.01.2020 passed in R.C.A.Nos.218 of 1998 and 368 of 1999 by the VIII Judge(Appellate Authority), Small Causes Court, Madras, confirming the orders dated 16.3.1998 and 19.3.1999 passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.2204 of 1993 and 1710 of 1995 by the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:(i) The respondents/landlords filed the R.C.O.P.2204 of 1993 on the ground of wilful default in paying of rent, invoking Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) and also on the ground of additional accommodation invoking Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The matter was contested before the Rent Controller. (ii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Being aggrieved by the same, R.C.A.218 of 1993 was filed for nothin...
S.A.Durai Sebastian, and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Heard Mr.I.Arokiasamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4.2. The writ petition arises out of an unnumbered Special Revision Petition (SRP) filed before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal (for short SAT). In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as C.R.P.No.1940 of 2003. Subsequently, as it was felt that a CRP under Section 115 C.P.C. will not lie, by orders of this Court, the matter was directed to be converted into a writ petition. Accordingly, after payment of new Court fees, it was re-numbered as W.P.No.8796 of 2004 and notice was ordered. The 5th respondent is yet to be served.3. The petitioners had filed the SRP under Section 26(5) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1990. The order challenged before the Tribunal was the order of the State Government vide Government's Letter No.13133/...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Pondicherry Commissionerate. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Though notice was duly served on the respondents, there is no representation either in person or through counsel. We therefore, proceed to decide this appeal on merits.2. In this appeal, the question of law that arises for consideration is as follows:-" Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has committed an error of law in holding that the provision prevailent after 01.03.2002 and prior to 01.04.2000 would be deemed to be in operation during the period when Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) of CENVAT Rules 2001 was in force by relying upon Section 21 and 24 of the General Causes Act 1897."3. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent was availing credit of CENVAT on Capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules 2001-2002. Such credit was availed by the first respondent based on duty paid documents in its favour on capital goods. The first respondent availed the entire credit of duty i.e., 100% on the capital goods in a sum of Rs.1,94,124/- instead of 50% of the said duty as has...
Cst, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
The issue for determination in this appeal is whether service tax is leviable on taxable services provided from abroad (outside India) prior to 16.06.2005. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the Apex Court judgment in the case of UOI Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association - 2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)]. In the light of the above, I uphold the impugned order holding that tax liability does not arise during the period in dispute which is prior to 16.06.05 and dismiss the appeal. 3. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments/reply upon to the revenue’s appeal and is hence dismissed....
M/S. Govardhan Enterprises Vs. Cst, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
The appellants do not challenge the liability to service tax on advertisements on bus panels, bus stations etc., and paid tax of Rs.90,653/-. They challenged the imposition of penalty upon them under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that they were not aware of their liability during the relevant period and inspite of raising this plea before the authorities below, no finding has been recorded thereon. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessees have contended even before the lower authorities that they were not aware of the liability to tax during the period in dispute. No statement admitting knowledge of liability has been recorded. The department has not discharged the burden of showing that non-payment during the relevant period was not due to lack of awareness, and with any deliberate intention to evade payment of service tax. I, therefore set aside the penalties by extending the shelter under the provisions of Finance Act, 1944. Accordingl...
M/S. International Flavours and Fragrances (i) Ltd. Vs. Cst, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
The issue in dispute in this appeal is as to what is the relevant date from which interest becomes payable, penalty becomes imposable from the date of utilization of credit or from the date of availment of such credit. 2. I have heard both sides. As regards levy of interest, I agree with the assessees that interest liability arises only from the date of wrong utilization of credit in the light of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CCE, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 173 (P and H) and Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI 2009 (240) ELT 328 (P and H). I, therefore, set aside the interest liability from the date of availment of credit and hold that the assessees are liable to pay interest only from the date of utilization of such credit. 3. As regards penalty, I see force in the submission of the assessees that penalty is not sustainable in the facts of the present case as the credit was initially taken correctly on the duty paid inputs, thus resulting in non...
S.Kannan ... Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 21.09.1999 in Na.Ka.No.2061/A1/99 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as single part-time vocational instructor in the "Electrical Domestic Appliances and Electrical Equipment" subject in the 4th respondent school.2. The petitioner was appointed on 12.10.98 to handle the Electrical subject. He worked from 12.10.98 to 31.03.99 and again from 01.06.99 till the date of filing the original application. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1177, dated 01.12.92 making provision for filling up of the sanctioned post of part time vocational instructors by the Chief Educational Officer in the Higher Secondary Schools, provided, the appointment does not result in extra financial commitment and that the total number of sanctioned post of part-time vocational instructors should not be exceeded. Another G.O.Ms....
A.Varatharajan ... Vs. the Director General of Police, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The petitioner entered into service as Grade II Police Constable on 16.04.1997. He was also entrusted with the duty of a Driver. On 12.04.2005, he drove the van of his Department bearing registration No.TN46-G-0085, taking the Bomb Deduction and Disposal Squad from Ariyalur to T.Pazalur. While so, the van involved in an accident with a two wheeler, resulting in the death of the rider of the two wheeler. The petitioner took the victim to the hospital and got him admitted. Though treatment was given to the victim for ten days, he succumbed to death. Hence, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.88/2005 under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC. 2. The third respondent took departmental action against the petitioner on the same set of facts. It was alleged that the petitioner drove the van rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The petitioner denied the charges alleged against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the third res...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »