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.
Kandeepan. Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Ponnai Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C. No.264 of 2006, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:(i) P.W.1 and 7 are sons of the deceased Chinnakkannu and P.W.3 is the nephew of the brother of the deceased. On the date of occurrence that was on 18.5.2006, when the deceased Chinnakkannu was sitting in front of the house, the accused came in a drunken mood and talked in a filthy language. When the same was questioned, he took an iron rod and attcked the deceased. All the witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, who witnessed the occurrence, intervened. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to S.M.H. Hospital, Ranipet and thereafter to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and he was treated by ...
M/S.Santhosh Traders, Vs. M/S. M.R.L. Agencies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.482 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur and he was convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.62 of 2010 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also filed a petition seeking suspension of sentence as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner had already been suspended by the trial Court after the fine amount being paid. The said appeal and the petition were numbered on 11.08.2010. But at the time of calling the appeal, as there was no representation and accused was absent, an order of dismissal was ...
S.R.Subramaniam. Vs. M/S.Syndicate Bank Shevapet, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, Salem, in R.E.P.No.59 of 2005 in O.S.No.83 of 2004.2. The facts in nutshell would run thus:(i) The first respondent herein obtained a money decree and it filed the REP No.59 of 2009, so as to get arrested the revision petitioner/judgment debtor for the purpose of recovering the decretal amount. The matter was contested. (ii) On the side of the first respondent/decree holder one Vasudevan was examined as P.W.1 and no document was marked. On the side of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor, the revision petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. (iii) Ultimately, the Executing Court rejected the plea of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor that he was a man of no means as on that date.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds.4. The learned counsel f...
T.K.Valluvan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Principal Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The petitioner's father was working as Headmaster at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Thozhudur, Cuddalore District. He died on 23.12.1985, while he was in service, leaving behind his wife, four daughters and two sons. The petitioner is one of the sons. Even before the death of his father, his elder brother was married on 15.02.1985 and was living with his family separately. The petitioner's brother was employed at a far away place and he is living at the place of his employment.2. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment due to the death of his father, stating that his family was in indigent circumstances. Based on his application for compassionate appointment, the District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam was directed to send report after conducting an enquiry. Accordingly, the District Educational Officer, Virudhachalam enquired into the matter and sent a report dated 25.05.1992. In the said report, he categorically stated that the elder brother of the petitione...
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited. Vs. R. Murugan, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The appellant insurance company has come forward with this appeal as against a dubious claim made by an advocate clerk/first respondent herein for the alleged injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The appellant is specifically aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.2,12,400/- in favour of the claimant/first respondent herein as against Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by him in the claim petition.2. The facts of the case was that on 06.12.2005 at about 20.45 hours, when the claimant/first respondent herein was proceeding in his bicycle slowly, in Raja Veedhi, Krishnagiri Town, near Mariamman Koil Street, the driver of the Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-29-R-5353 belonging to the first respondent in the claim petition, was driven by him in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant/first respondent herein. In the impact, the claimant/first respondent herein said to have sustained certain injuries, as mentioned in column No.11 of the claim petition,...
T. Tirumalai Gounder, and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The unsuccessful petitioners challenge the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition in W.P. No. 36842 of 2004 filed to quash the proceedings passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal are:2.1. As per the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kallakurichi in DKT 1522/1367 dated 18.10.1959, land in S. No. 120/2B measuring 5.00 acres in Nallathur village of Kallakurichi Taluk was assigned to one Ramasamy, son of Ayyan and the same was sold in favour of one Dhanabackiam, who, in turn sold the property to one Kandasamy under registered Sale Deed dated 16.3.1966. Subsequently, the writ petitioner Thirumalai Gounder purchased the land under registered Sale Deed dated 16.5.1967. On the petition filed by the fifth respondent Angamuthu and three others claiming right over the assigned land, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, after gi...
The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Vs. the Presiding Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Proof by preponderance of probabilities What does this phrase convey in the context of a Disciplinary Proceeding? Precisely, this question has come up for consideration in this writ petition.2. The 2nd respondent is a trade union and its members are employees working in the petitioner bank. From 04.04.1994 onwards one Mr.V.Naganathan [hereinafter referred to as "the employee"] was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the petitioner bank. He is also a member of the 2nd respondent trade union. The petitioner bank on 12.12.1995 issued a charge memorandum to the employee alleging that he had demanded and accepted 10% of the loan amount as illegal gratification along with Field Officer - Sri N.Suruli Bommaiyan and the then Branch Manager - Sri O.Arumugam while disposing five small loans and seventeen charcoal loans to different borrowers during the period between December, 1993 and March, 1994. The employee denied the said charge by submitting a detailed explanation dated 23.01.1996. Not sa...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Venus Gas Appliances
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein filed a Bill of Entry dated 19.12.2002 for clearance of 400 nos. of gas meters declaring the unit price for the item as EURO 8.65 CandF. The Department noticed that the similar item was cleared by the importer from the same supplier at a price of EURO 22 CandF under a Bill of Entry dated 17.9.2002. The value was therefore enhanced to EURO 22 CandF, rejecting the transaction value. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the loading of value; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the price of EURO 8.65 per piece of gas meters was secured by the assessees after protracted negotiations with the supplier for the price reduction. The negotiations were conducted in a transparent manner and in the normal course of commercial transaction in international trade between the seller and the buyer. It has also been found that the manufacturer had invoiced the same goods to the present supplier at EURO 6....
M/S. Salzer Spinners Ltd Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. The appellants are before the Tribunal for the third time. In the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in the second round, the adjudicating-Commissioner was merely directed to redetermine the issue with regard to imposition of penalty as that was the only issue which was challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequent to the remand order, the adjudicating-Commissioner has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs. We find that in the first adjudication order, the penalty imposed was Rs.2 lakhs, in the second adjudication order, after the first remand, the penalty imposed was Rs.3.5 lakhs and in the third adjudication order passed after the second remand, the penalty has been reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. When the matter was remanded on the appeal by the appellants in the first round, they could not have been visited with a greater penalty in the fresh order. That has been corrected now in the impugned order as penalty has been brought do...
M/S. Sun Spinners Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein are manufacturers of cotton yarn. During the financial year 1995 - 96, from 1.4.1995 to 22.4.1994 they cleared cotton yarn on payment of excise duty at normal rate and filed classification list on 21.4.1995 for availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE as amended. From 27.4.1995 to 8.5.1994 they cleared goods availing SSI exemption upto the value of Rs.30 lakhs excluding the value of goods cleared during the period from 1.4.1995 to 22.4.1995 for the purpose of computation of aggregate value of first clearances for availing the exemption. After the inclusion of the value of clearances made between 1.4.1995 and 22.4.1995 in the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs, the assessees were found ineligible for full exemption in respect of the goods cleared during the period from 27.4.1995 to 8.5.1995. Hence show-cause notice was issued proposing duty demand on the value of goods cleared during the period 27.4.95 to 8.5.95. The adjudicating...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »