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.
Sri Vishnu Shankar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
The request of the exporters for conversion of DEPB Shipping Bill for export of cotton yarn to Russia to drawback Shipping Bill as DEPB benefit was not available to countries like Russia which are rupee payment area countries has been rejected in the absence of proof of the benefit of DEPB being denied by the DGFT / Ministry of Commerce or Customs due to any dispute. 2. I have heard both sides and find that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the office of the Jt. DGFT has rejected the application of the assessees for DEPB benefits since the realization has been done in Indian rupees, under cover of letter dated 11.12.2009. The plank on which the Commissioner’s order of denial of conversion rested has thus fallen to the ground. The Commissioner is therefore required to consider the claim for conversion in the light of the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand for passing fr...
M/S. P.S.T.S. and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
Penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the assessees herein who is a CHA of M/s. Saraf Trading Corporation, under the provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, is challenged in the present appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The CHA has been penalized for abetting misdeclaration and receipt of drawback claimed on tea which was no longer covered under the drawback schedule with effect from 1.6.2000 onwards. There is no evidence on record to bring out the knowledge or belief on the part of the CHA that the claim was ineligible as Tea had been removed from the coverage of the drawback schedule. Therefore, penalty on the CHA is not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order imposing penalty on the CHA and allow the appeal....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Annapoorna Re-rolling (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2010
In this case the Additional Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs.6,34,585/- together with education cess of Rs.11,064/- and a further demand of Rs.3,09,962/- plus educational cess of Rs.11,265/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.9,66,876/- on the assessees. Aggrieved by this order the assessees preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with an application for waiver under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessees in the light of certain decisions of the Tribunal; Revenue is now in appeal against the setting aside of the demand of Rs.3,21,227/-. 2. I have heard both sides. The learned DR is correct in pointing out that although stay application was filed by the assessees before the lower appellate authority, no orders have been passed thereon and the appeal has been straightaway disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) without crossing the bar of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and n...
S.Venkatappa Chetty .. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 28.07.2003 made in Special C.C.No.126 of 1995 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2.0. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused was working as Inspector of Assessment in the office of the Assistant Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Venbadithalam in Salem District. He is said to have demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.50/- from P.W.3 for accepting the remittance of Rs.600/- as electricity consumption deposit charge in the name of his mother/P.W.9 and for issuing the receipt for the same an...
P.Mohanasundaram. Vs. the President, the Institute of Chartered Accoun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
1. On consent the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2.The writ petition is filed against the order of the respondents dated 16.04.2010, made in No.3SCA(4)(1)/2009-2010 in and under which the name of the petitioner is permanently removed from the register of members with effect from the date of its publication on 19.02.2010 and to quash the same. 3.The facts, relevant for consideration herein are briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner along with three others were during 1990 prosecuted in C.C.No.8575 of 1990 for the alleged offence under Sections 494 and 109 I.P.C. for the alleged act of bigamy. The petitioner was, after full-fledged trial by Judgment dated 10.05.1999 convicted for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against the same, the petitioner and other accused moved Crl.R.C.Nos.102 and 103 of 2000 and both the revisions are by common order dated 13.02.2003 disposed of by this Court and revision petition file...
D.Faritha Begam, and ors. Vs. Razia Banu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.M.A.Nos.93 and 97 of 2005 confirming the order dated 15.3.2005 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, in E.A.Nos.414 and 411 of 2004; and the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by the same Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore in E.P.No.45 of 2004, these civil revision petitions are focussed. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revisions would run thus:(a) The revision petitioners along with the deceased Kathaija Bibi, filed the RCOP No.79 of 1986 as against the respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The matter was contested by the respondents. Ultimately eviction order was passed and as against which no appeal was filed. (b) The said Kataija Bivi died on 18.11.2003. The fact also remains that even during her life time Kataija Bivi along with the revision...
N.Krishna Moorthy .. and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsildar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
1. Heard Mr.Ullasavelan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the respondent.2. These appeals were filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore in LAOP Nos.21, 23 and 22 of 1996. By a common judgment dated 3.2.2005, the Reference Court fixed the market value payable for the lands of the appellants at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per Acre (Rs.333/- per Cent). The Initial compensation fixed by the acquisition authority was Rs.20,000/- per Acre, which worked out to Rs.200/- per Cent. The aggrieved appellants raised objection with reference to the fixation of compensation by the respondent/acquiring authority and the matter was referred under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value by the reference court. The Reference Court registered the reference as LAOP Nos.21/1996, 23/1996 and 22/1996. Before the Reference Court, on the side of the ap...
V. Sridharan Vs. M/A. Sreyas, Rep. by Its Partner
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
(The Appellant as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent / opposite party, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,40,000/- with subsequent interest at 18% p.a.,. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.3.2006 in OP No.283/2002.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The appellant/ complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking direction against the opposite parties, for the payment of Rs.4,40,000/- with subsequent interest, on the following grounds: The complainant, and the opposite party entered into a construction agreement dt.8.10.1997, for the construction of a flat, valued at Rs.15,18,400/-, measuring an extent of 1104 sq.ft. Pursuant to that, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, and the opposite party agreed to adjust the balance of Rs.1,18,400/...
A.Govinda Rao. Vs. C.Venkataswamy (Died), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree, dated 8.4.1986 made in O.S.No.1655 of 1983 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to the suit property and possession as well as for mesne profits. Before the trial court, there were 20 defendants. Subsequently, when the appeal was filed, since first and third defendants died, their legal representatives, i.e. respondents 21 to 28 were brought on record. Similarly, on account of death of the second respondent, respondents 29 to 35 were brought on record. Subsequently, on account of death of fourth respondent, respondents 36 to 44 were brought on record. 3. Pending proceedings, the 37th respondent was no more and his LRs were sought to be brought on record in CMP Nos.15949 to 15952 of 2002. Further, sole appellant died and therefore, CMP No.2166 of 2007 was filed to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased sole a...
K.Dharmalingam, and anr. Vs. Pappathi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in O.S.No.129 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court-1, Erode.2. The following are the averments in the plaint succinctly stated:2.1. The suit properties originally belonged to one V.M.Nachimuthu as his ancestral properties. One Elayammal was his wife and they had one daughter by name Eswari and one son by name Durai @ Selvaraj. The daughter Eswari got married to Kandasamy and they had one daughter by name Vijayalakshmi, the third defendant and one son by name Dharmalingam, the first plaintiff. The said Durai @ Selvaraj married to Pappathi, the first defendant and they had two sons, the first son is Raja, the second plaintiff and the second son is S.Prakash, the second defendant. 2.2. The said Durai @ Selvaraj died on 29.04.1982. Till his death, the entire suit properties were in the possession and enjoyment of his father, namely, V.M.Nachimuthu. Even after the dea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »