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.
A.M.Mohan, and anr. Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, (Cbi), and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. These two petitions are preferred by the accused in Crime No.96 of 2010 and seek quash of investigation therein.2. The defacto complainant informed that his company viz., AL Triven Steels Limited was engaged in the real estate business in India and had entered into a memorandum of understanding with one IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited towards purchase of lands in specified areas. The accused herein had approached the defacto complainant, informed of good experience in the field and of a good tie up with the villagers and land owners in the specified areas and offered services. Memorandum of understanding dated 03.08.2007 was entered into between the defacto complainant and the 1st accused in Crl.O.P.No.8575 of 2010 and a consideration of Rs.31,50,000/- per acre was agreed upon. During November'07, the 1st accused informed that 'second Mrs.D.Sundarambal' was the lawful owner of prime properties of an approximate extent of 20 acres and offered to sell the same in keeping with the M...
Manivasagam. Vs. Rukmani Khadir.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. Inveighing the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in RCA No.713 of 2002 confirming the order and decree dated 25.07.2002 passed by the learned XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Controller) in RCOP No.1266 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records would run thus:a] The respondent herein filed the RCOP for the purpose of evicting the tenant on the ground of willful default by invoking Section 10 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Counter was filed and the matter was litigated. b] During enquiry, the petitioner/landlady examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and on the side of the respondent/tenant, the tenant examined himself as RW1 and no document was marked. c] Ultimately, the lower court ordered eviction as against which ...
M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Boopathy Raj, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.185 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.5 - Additional District Judge) at Tirupur for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.1.2003, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2003 at about 19.45 hours, when the claimant/1st Respondent was riding two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 T 3902, on Coimbatore-Palladam Road near Semmipalayam Privu, the van bearing Registration No.TN 02 D - 7401 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and he was thrown out of the vehicle and as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Coimbatore Richmond Hospital where he had taken treatment. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.43 of 2003 on the file of Palladam Police Station.3. The further case of the Claimant is that ...
Dr. Subramanian. Vs. the Administrator Cum Scheme Judge, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. The Anbanathapuram Vahaiara Charities was established long back. There are five descendent families to the founder. A dispute arose relating to administration of the charity that led to the filing of suit in O.S. No.68/48 under Section 92 CPC before the first respondent-Sub Court. The Sub Court passed a decree in 1951 framing a scheme. The scheme was modified by way of another decree dated 06.04.1960 in O.S. No.17 of 1960. The scheme was further modified by way of another decree dated 22.03.2002 in O.S. No.234/1994. As on date, as per the scheme framed by the first respondent-Sub Court, the administration of the charities is under the control of the Board of Trustees. As per the scheme, there are six trustees in the Board of Trustees and each family could be represented by one trustee and the first respondent-Sub Court could select one member from each family as a trustee. The sixth member is also selected by the first respondent-Sub Court among the members of the five families. Thi...
Priya Darshini Dental College and Hospital, Vs. Union of India Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15.07.2010 and to consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to admit the students for BDS course for the current academic year 2010-2011 and to further direct the respondents to grant renewal permission to run the 4th year BDS course for the academic year 2010-2011.3. The brief facts relevant for consideration are set out hereunder: The petitioner Priya Darshini Dental College and hospital was established to run BDS course from the academic year 2007-2008 and the permission was periodically renewed after satisfying with the facilities available therein for the subsequent years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The petitioner has for the academic year 2010-2011 submitted an application along with necessary fee to the second respondent for renewal of permission for running 4th year. On receipt of the application, the second respondent ca...
M/S. Unico Leather Product (P) Ltd., Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. Challenging the Award, dated 13.09.2004 passed in I.D.No.96 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore, this writ petition has been preferred by the Management.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent, employee, Mrs.R.Vijayalakshmi was reported dead, hence, the minor respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded as legal representatives of the second respondent.3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought an order to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, the first respondent herein and also to direct the first respondent to accept the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner / management and the findings of the enquiry report, dated 03.12.1998. Admittedly, there was no final order passed by the Labour Court.4. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision, ITC Ltd., vs. Industrial Tribunal, reported in 2008 (4) CTC 465, submitted that the writ pe...
Tamilselvi ... Vs. the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. The petitioner is the wife of one Mr.Ramadoss, who was employed as a Teacher in Ayyappanaickenpet Panchayat Union Middle School, Jayakondam Taluk and died on 17.03.1991, while in service. The first wife of the deceased Ramadoss predeceased him. There are two minor children to the first wife at the time of the death of Mr.Ramadoss. Dispute arose between the minor children and the petitioner herein relating to the receipt of various benefits due to the death of Mr.Ramadoss.2. The petitioner approached the District Munsif Court, Jayakondam by filing O.S.No.45 of 2000 seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Ramadoss and she is entitled to receive the entire terminal benefits.3. While so, it is stated that Rule 49 (7)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules provides for payment of family pension to the minor children of the predeceased wife of the deceased Government employee.4. Hence a proposal was sent by the Government on 31.12.1992 providing 50% of...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Sharadha Castings Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the reduction of the penalty upon the assessees under the provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that the penalty equal to the outstanding duty is prescribed under the rule and this is a mandatory penalty. The cross-objection has been filed by the assessees on the ground that the abatement claims have been disallowed by the Dy. Commissioner while it is only the Commissioner who has empowered under the law to decide such claims. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the statutory provisions viz., Section 3 (a) (4) of the Central Excise Rules prescribe that the Commissioner shall decide the claims for abatement. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner, who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees. The cross-objection is also allowed by way of remand....
M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs. Cce (Ltu), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. A demand of Rs. 3,99,840/- has been confirmed together with interest against the assessees herein under the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which provides that when input or capital goods on which cenvat credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final product or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs of capital goods. In addition, equal amount of penalty has been imposed on the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly accepted in the impugned order that the assessees have not taken cenvat credit on the Nitration Plant which are the goods in question. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3(5) are not attracted against the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) holding that there is a possibility that the previous owner of Nitration Plant viz., M/s.Kothari S...
M/S. K.K.S.K. Leather Processors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. The delay of 107 days in preferring the above appeals is sought to be explained as under:- “There has been division of property between the family members, where the various movable and immovable assets were being valued and shared between the family members. Consequently, the Managing Director of the applicant company went totally pre-occupied with various activities relating to such division of properties. Further, the official concerned of the Applicant company dealing with these matters resigned from the services of the company. Thus the applicant had reasonable grounds for not preferring their appeal within the time limit stipulated. Further, the earlier order of the adjudicating authority in demanding the service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006 when Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, was enacted rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has been appealed against by the Department to CESTAT. Moreover, the applicant company is engaged in the export of leat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »