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.
Calcutta Iron and Steel Co Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The claim for interest on delayed refund has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the amount refunded was in the form of security deposit and not duty, and therefore, there was no statutory provision for payment of interest. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that an amount of Rs.9,70,865/- was paid as security while a further amount of Rs.4,52,735/- was adjusted towards duty. Initially, only the security amount was refunded but vide the impugned order, the amount of duty adjusted has also been refunded. As far as the amount of Rs.9,70,865/- is concerned, I agree with the authorities below that the assessee is not entitled to interest as Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 only provides for payment of interest at the specified rate in the event of delay in refund of duty and not delay in refund of an amount representing security deposit. However, as regards the amount of Rs.4,52,735/-, which admittedly represents duty, since there has been a delay in refund of th...
Brakes India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ltu Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeal as it is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Leave granted - the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another Vs. Tmt. S. Radha
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
(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.85000/- towards the deficiency in service ad mental agony alongwith 18% interest for the amount of Rs.74,730/-. 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.5.5.2006 in C.O.P.No.359/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants 2. The complainant/ respondent, who was working as a teacher for 10 years, resigned from the post on 31.5.1998. After resignation, she came to know that provident fund amount, relating to 8 years service, when she worked at Sholingar was not credited. After number of letters, reminders and personal request, only on 22.4.2003, the 2nd opposite party has credited the complainants account, thereby they have committed deficiency, leading to monetary loss, to...
Adi Sankara Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The assessee has come up on appeal, challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2009 passed in ITA No.1124/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 by raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in disallowing the claim of expenditure on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure,more so in the context of the latest full bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bjojraj Textiles Mills Ltd and also another Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Textiles which was rendered after the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Pvt.Ltd (315 ITR 114)? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the test of enduring benefit is the only criteria in determining whether expenditure is capital or revenue in nature? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the App...
K.MeenA.Vs. the Secretary to Government.and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ramu. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.34/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 11.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases namely (1) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.159/2002 under Sec.324 IPC; (2) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.32/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 324 IPC; (3) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.594/2007 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC; (4) M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.19/2010 under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC; (5) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and (6) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.65/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in o...
C.Karruppayee . Vs. the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Dhanasekar. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.31/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 7.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases namely (1) E5 Sholavaram PS Cr.No.776/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC r/w 120(b) IPC r/w 109 IPC; (2) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.394/2009 under Sec.302 r/w 120(b) IPC; (3) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC; (4) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.65/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and (5) M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.19/2010 under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC, and also in one ground c...
M.Dhanesh MoothA.Vs. the Sub Registrar Kundrathur, Chennai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The petitioner's father owned 1.69 acres of property comprised in Survey Nos.25 (part) and 36 (part) of Porur Village, having purchased the same under three different sale deeds dated 21.10.1963, 28.10.1963 and 28.10.1963 in document Nos.2774/1963, 2836/1963 and 2837/1963 respectively, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, measuring 50 cents, 50 cents and 69 cents respectively. Out of the said 1.69 acres, 69 cents and 56 cents were sold by his father during his lifetime and the remaining extent of 44 cents was retained by him till his death on 05.12.2007. In those circumstances, the petitioner's mother executed a release deed dated 24.05.2010 releasing her half undivided share in the said 44 cents in his favour and the said document was presented to the respondent herein for registration and the same was registered as document No.139 of 2010. However, the respondent declined to return the document after registration by referring a letter dated 22.03.2010 written by the Executi...
S.Kalaivani. Vs. the State Rep. By: Secretary to the Government, and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu D.Thaveethu @ Thennavan. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in BDFGISSV No.17/2010 dated 4.4.2010, whereby her husband was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases namely (1) Mamallapuram PS Cr.No.192/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 302 IPC r/w 3 & 4 of Indian Explosive Substances Act; (2) Chunambedu PS Cr.No.59/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and (3) Chunambedu PS Cr.No.60/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 394, 307 IPC r/w 3 of Indian Explosive Substances Act and also in one ground case registered by Chunambedu PS Cr.No.154/2010 under Sections 147, ...
Mrs.Molly Alexander, and ors. Vs. Mr.Ramachandran the Tahsildar Ambatt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. The Writ Petitioners complaining non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22910/2009 dated 14.12.2009 filed the present Contempt Petition with the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 2. The writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 03.06.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to measure and demarcate the property plot No.8, in S.Nos.127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95. 3. (i) The petitioner is a Power of Attorney holder of (1)Mrs.Molly Alexander, (2) Mrs.Mercy Silva and (3) Ddr.Jacob Mathew who are the legal heirs of Mrs.Thangamma Mathew the original owner of property in Plot No.8, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95 in Survey Nos.127/4A and 3A measuring an ext...
M. Ethiraj. Vs. the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-ii Spencer Building ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the first respondent/Debt Recovery Tribunal-II from passing orders in O.A.No. 73 of 2004 on its file till the disposal of the appeal in M.A. No. 353 of 2010 on the file of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. We have heard Mr. K. Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.V. Chandran for the second respondent/Bank and Mr. Antony Selvan for the sixth respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Arulmighu Kolavizhi Amman Temple, Mylapore, Chennai 4 filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 914 of 1989 before this Court against one Dhakshinamurthy and his brothers for recovery of amount. Though the petitioner was an occupant of the temple land, he has not been shown as defendant in the suit. After contest, the suit was decreed whereby a decree of declaration was issued in favour of the temple on 20.02.2009. In the meantime, the sixth respondent seems to have obtained a power of atto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »