Chennai Court August 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.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, and anr. Vs. M/S.Mohan Breweries a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the second respondent was correct in law in allowing the MODVAT benefits when the sub-heading 8429.00 is one of the specifically excluded items for the grant of the said benefit under Rule 57-Q and the table annexed to it".2. We heard Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent.3. The short facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent is engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles falling under Chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff. On verification of MODVAT documents for the month of October, 1999, the authorities of the appellant noticed that Rs.3,44,000/- was availed as credit on Capital Goods for No.1 of Hindustan 2021 Loader with 2 Bar, which was classified by invoice No.20076 dated 21.8.1999 of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited, Pondicherry. The invoice product was classified under the ...
Anguraj, and ors. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Lan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents.2. The petitioners had stated that they are the absolute owners of the property in S.No.173/4B, of Baguthampalayam Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.F.Nos.158/3, 4, 5, 141/3, 151/8, 212 and 142/1 Baguthampalayam Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent permit had been granted to the petitioners, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioners to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioners have been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from them. The petitioners had also been directed to pay an one time water cess, for the usage of the water percolated in the Well in question, from the Bhavani river.3. It had also been stated that the petitioners have been using the water fro...
P.Vasanthi, and anr. Vs. Mrs.P.Thambuswamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 04.03.2008 passed in RCA Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 by the VIII Court of Small Causes at Madras, in reversing the order of dismissal of the eviction petition dated 22.11.2006 passed in RCOP Nos.593 and 594 of 2006 by the XVI Court of Small Causes at Madras, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus:(i) The respondent herein filed two RCOPs by invoking Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(v) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], on the following grounds: (1) Wilful default(2) Act of waste(3) Act of nuisance; and(4) Demolition and reconstruction. The revision petitioners are husband and wife. The matter was contested.(ii) On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the tenants...
Dhanalakshmi. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The petitioner had stated that she is the absolute owner of the property in S.Nos.115/1, 115/2, 116/1, 88/6 and 89/1 of Baguthampalayam Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.F.No.208/1B of Ikkarainegammam Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent permit had been granted to the petitioner, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioner to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from her. The petitioner had also been directed to pay an one time water cess, for the usage of the water percolated in the Well in question, from the Bhavani river.3. It had also been stated that the petitioner has been using the water from the Well in que...
M/S.Sonali Rep. by Its Partner Mr.Amit K.Saiya, Vs. C.Balaji.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/ Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 12.10.2009 in R.C.A.No.754 of 2008 passed by the Learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2.The Learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, while passing order in R.C.A.No.754 of 2008 dated 12.10.2009, has among other things observed that '... The Petitioner has pleaded and established has bona fides with regard to his claim and he is entitled for an order of eviction against the Respondent on the ground of owner's own use and occupation.' Further, the Learned Appellate Authority has opined that the 'Learned Rent Controller has addressed all the issues in its proper perspective and has come to a right conclusion that the claim of the Petitioner is bona fide and ordered eviction of the Respondent which suffers from no serious factual or legal infirmity that warrants interference from this Court' and resultantly, d...
G.Balambal. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. A.S.Nos.807/2005, 1001/2007 and 712/2009 are filed by the Acquiring Authority. A.S.No.137 of 2005 is filed by a claimant/land owner.2. A.S.No.807 of 2005 is directed against LAOP No.22 of 2002. As against the same LAOP, the claimant has field A.S.No.137 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation. A.S.No.712 of 2009 is filed against LAOP No.35/2002. Likewise, A.S.No.1001 of 2007 is filed against LAOP No.12 of 2003.3. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the acquiring authority in all the appeals and for the respondent in A.S.No.137 of 2005, Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal Nos.807 of 2005 and 712 of 2009 as well as for the appellant in A.S.No.137 of 2005 and Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar for the respondent/claimant in the Appeal No.1001 of 2007.4. In all these appeals, the lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing a bye-pass road in Kodanagar and Thiruvathur Villages, Cheyyar Taluk in Thiruvannam...
M/S.Jagal Priya Medicals, Vs. Tmt.Mangammal Rep.by Her Power Agent.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VII Small Causes Court) Chennai, in R.C.A.No.617 of 2005 in confirming the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP No.772 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(a) The respondent/landlady filed the RCOP No.772 of 2002 invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(herein after referred to as the 'Act' for short) on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents by the tenant. The matter was contested. (b) During enquiry, on the side of the landlady, her son-in-law-Elango was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the tenant, one Dhamodharan was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. (c) Ult...
B.Selvam, and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. All these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the respondents. Considering the question of law involved in all these writ petitions, common order is being passed.2. W.P.Nos.4235 and 4236 of 2008 have been filed, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the G.O.Ms.No.418, Housing and Urban Development (UD4 (2)) Department, dated 31.12.2007 of the first respondent herein and quash the same.3. W.P.No.4448 of 2008 has been filed, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating from the file of the first respondent leading to the G.O.Ms.No.418, Housing and Urban Development (UD4(2)), dated 31.12.2007 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from, in any way, preventing the petitioner from developing his lands.4. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.4448 of 200...
iffco-tokio General Ins. Co Ltd. Vs. M. Paramasivam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. The Insurance company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of a sum of Rs.15,622/- awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant as against a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- claimed in the claim petition.2. The facts of the case was that on 23.04.2004 at about 11.00 am at Narayanavalasu, Nasiyanoor Road, near Anand Theater priivu, the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-33-AB-8575 and at that time, a known person, who was riding his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained fracture on his left side of the head (skull fracture) (acute subdural Haematoma over left cerebral convexity with mass effect and midline shift). For the aforesaid injury, the claimant underwent a surgery (Expansile dure-plasty done with temporalis facis bone flap replaced) by which the skull bone was removed and blood clot in brain was operated and skull bone re-fixed. At the time of accident, the claiman...
K.Murugasamy. Vs. the Inspector of Factories, Villupuram, Villupuram D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in C.M.P.No.832 of 2007 adding the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1 of 2006.2. The Inspector of Factories, Villupuram, had filed a complaint against the accused Palaniappan, who was the Manager of the Chengalvarayan Co-op. Sugar Mills, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. There was a fatal accident on 16.03.2005 in the sugar factory and a worker by name Ravi Rajan died. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, had inspected the factory on 18.03.2005 and issued show cause notice to the accused Palaniappan and also to the petitioner herein. On receiving explanation, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, had accorded sanction to file a complaint against the accused Palaniappan. Then, the Inspector of Factories, Villupuram, had filed a complaint only against the accused Palaniappan. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »