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.
Forbes and Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The claim of the assessees for interest on delayed payment of refund in cash of unutilized credit has been disallowed on the ground that refund of credit is not tantamount to refund of duty and hence the claim for interest is not covered under the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. I have heard both sides and find that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co.Ltd. Vs UOI [2005 (185) ELT 19 (Guj.)] against which the Revenue has filed S.L.P which was dismissed, as seen from 2005 (186) ELT A117 (SC). The High Court’s decision has been followed by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2007 (215) ELT 380]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, and noting that, admittedly, there has been delay in the payment of refund of unutilized credit in the form of cash, I accept that assessees are entitled to interest with effec...
Cethar Vessels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The claim of the assessees for refund has been granted on merits but the amount has been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the assessees had not established that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to others. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessees had produced photocopies of ledger account which the authorities below have held as not sufficient for the purpose of verification of their claim that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to others. The assessees submits that, if an opportunity is extended to them, they will produce originals of the ledger account as well as certificates from buyers that they had not paid the duty element indicated in the invoices. The interest of justice requires that the case be examined afresh. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence and producing such evidence ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Tirunelveli Vs. M.Raja, Proprietor Raja ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The assessees have sought adjournment. However, since the issue stands decided in their favour by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, I decline to grant adjournment and proceed to take up the appeal. 2. I have heard ld. SDR and perused the records. The Revenue questions the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) of remanding the case after amendment of the provisions of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001. I find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Medico Labs [2004 (173) ELT 117(Guj)], the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have the power of remand even after the amendment of the statutory provisions above mentioned. The decision of the Gujarat High Court has been followed in a series of decisions by the Tribunal. Following the decision of the Gujarat High Court cited supra, I uphold the impugned order remanding the case, and dismiss th...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Rep. by Its Regional ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.978761.60/- as compensation alongwith interest @12% p.a. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.3.2006 in C.O.P.No.184/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The facts necessary to decide the appeal briefly as follows: The complainant/ respondent, who is engaged in job work contracts, and expert in the garment industry, turning out fabric into finished garments, based upon the requirement of others, had insured the stocks fabric, garments, machineries, etc. with the opposite party, and the premises being 1/20, GST Road, Singaperumal Koil, Kancheepuram District. The sum assured was Rs.2.7 lakhs, for which, without default, premium also paid. 3. On 12.10.2001,...
Sherwine Tom. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. Heard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. None represented the 4th respondent College, though they have been served.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the 3rd respondent in Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 and the order of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.EXVIII(2)/46186/2009 dated 03.06.2010 with a direction to regularize their admission to B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.3. According to the petitioners, they wanted to join B.Sc. Nursing Degree Course in Tamil Nadu and made applications to the Government of Kerala, Board of Higher Secondary Examination and obtained Migration Certificate from the competent authority. Along with the required original certificates, viz., Higher Secondary Certificates, Transfer Certificates issued by the competent authority, the petitioners contacted the 4th respondent College (hereinafter referr...
Dr.(Mrs.)snehalateha Elangovan. Vs. S.Shanmugam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. This civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction to the VII Small Causes Court(Rent Control Appellate Authority) Chennai to dispose of the RCA No.138 of 2010 on merits, within a time frame.2. The short facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner, being a landlady, filed the RCOP No.1345 of 2009 and ultimately obtained the order of eviction on the ground of 'wilful detault' in paying rent and also on the ground of 'owners occupation'. During the pendency of the RCOP, application No.386 of 2009 was filed by the revision petition/landlady under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same was ordered by the Rent Controller. (ii) However, it appears, there was non-compliance with the said order. Whereupon eviction was also ordered. As against the said order, two RCAs were filed by the respondent/tenant and now they are pending.3. The grievance of the revision petitioner/...
S.Palanidoss. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pro.Rc.No.93445/96/C2, dated 11.03.1997, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in Lr.No.74000/T & A.I/97-7, dated 27.07.1998, seeking to quash the said orders with a consequential directions to the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner on top of the panel for promotion as Accountant for 1996 in Tirunelveli District Treasury Unit and promote the petitioner as Accountant with retrospective effect from 04.04.1986, with consequential benefits, and consequently include his name in the panel for promotion as Superintendent, Grade II, with reference to his seniority in the post of Accountant as on 04.04.1986.2. After the petitioner's selection through TNPSC as Junior Assistant, he was allotted to the Treasuries and Accounts Department in the Kanchipuram District Treasury Unit on 24.08.1997 and after completion of the period of probation satisfactorily on 21.01.1980, he was transferred at his own re...
G.Ponniyammal. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. The petitioner's husband participated in the Tamil Area Merger Movement launched by the Tamil Leader Shri. M.P.Sivagnanam and other leaders for the merger of Tamil areas in the northern belt of Tamil Nadu like Thiruthani, Pallipattu. While he participated in the agitations, he was imprisoned in Central Prison, Madras from 29.09.1956 to 05.10.1956. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Payment of Pensions to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983 (shortly "the Act") providing pension to those, who have exhibited courage or nobility in their zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil language or Tamil culture or exhibited conspicuous talents in Tamil language and to provide for sanction of pension or grant to the families of persons, who have evinced remarkable enthusiasm for Tamil language or Tamil culture, and while striving to uphold their enthusiasm for Tamil language or for the preservation of Tamil culture, lost their lives. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act a...
L.Vimal Devakumar. Vs. the District Project Nutrition Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. The petitioner's mother Late Jeyaragini, while serving as Child Welfare Organiser in Thirumalai Centre, Chetpet Block, Thiruvannamalai District, expired on 17.09.1999. After rendering 17 years of service in the office of the respondent, in November, 1996, she suffered a Paralytic attack and was bed-ridden. It is also submitted that the petitioner submitted her leave application during the said period along with medical certificate and subsequent to that, she died on 17.09.1999. Therefore, after the death of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner being a daughter of Late Jeyaragini, presented a representation to the District Project Nutrition Officer, Thiruvannamalai, claiming the benefits under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme on account of the death of her mother, on the ground that the petitioner's mother was a member of the said scheme, as she was regularly contributing to the Family Benefit Fund and the petitioner being only legal heir of the deceased mother, she further made a r...
Amirtham, and anr. Vs. the Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 30.12.2009 in Na.Ka.No.2323/09 LPS3 and to consequently direct the third respondent to grant planning permission on the basis of the petitioner's application dated 09.11.2009.3. The property situated in various Survey Nos.399/1B1, 399/2, 400/2A, 401/2A, 402/2C-2 of Kallapatti Village in Coimbatore District measuring 5.19 Acres belong to the petitioners 1 and 2 having been allotted the same in the family partition. The petitioners jointly appointed other two persons as their power of attorneys to maintain the property and have also through their power of attorneys made an application to the third respondent to sanction the layout plan in Survey No. 402/2C-2 and the application is filed along with necessary documents such as Layout plan, Topo sketch, Parent document, FMB sketch, Chitta & Adangal, No Objection Certificate issued by Tahsildar an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »