Chennai Court August 2010 Judgments

K. Raja, and ors. Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, P-6, Kod ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(2)MWN(Crl)416

1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Chennai in S.C. No.374 of 2009, whereby the accused/ appellants, three in numbers, stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:- Sl.No. Rank of the accused Charge Findings Sentence1. 1st accused 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. Guilty Guilty Guilty Pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 2. 2nd accused 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. Guilty Guilty Guilty Pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months Simpl...

K. Rose. Vs. the Commissioner of Police, and ors.

Court: Chennai

1. On "Being Mentioned" by the learned counsel for the State, this matter is taken up this day. The detenue is produced before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also present. 2. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit, the daughter of the petitioner, aged 20 years, is found missing from 1.4.2010, but she has not been secured by the respondent-police. Hence, he is compelled to file the present habeas corpus petition. 3. This day, the detenue is produced before this Court by the respondent-police. When she was enquired, she stated that she was born on 5.6.1988 and she studied upto X Standard. She married Thirunavukkarasu in a temple at Sulurpet and she is living with him. The said fact was not known to the petitioner. It is not correct to state that she was either threatened by the wife of the fourth respondent or she was taken custody by them. She is all along living with her husband at Sulurpet from where she has been produced before this Cou...

M.Kaliyaperumal, and ors.Vs. the Chief Manager (Land Acquisition) (Ear ...

Court: Chennai

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuing a mandamus, directing the respondents to allot an alternative land to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition of the petitioner's land and house situated at New No.236 (Old No.597), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Periyakurichi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Neyveli 607 802, Cuddalore District by the 3rd respondent for the benefit of the 1st respondent.2.The writ petition was admitted on 30.01.2006. During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died and the petitioners 2 to 5 are substituted as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner by order dated 15.10.2009. The legal representatives are now pursuing the writ petition.3.It is the case of the petitioners that the original petitioner purchased a land in the year 1986 measuring 2400 sq.ft. in Survey Nos.240/4, 240/5B and 240/6A2 situated at New No.236 (Old No.597), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Periyakurichi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Neyveli 607 802, Cuddalore District and he c...

K.M.Abdul Subhan .Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and ors.

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioner was a Muthavalli of Gudimiyandithope Mosque, Sholinganallur, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The respondent issued show-cause notice alleging certain allegations against the petitioner that he sold the Wakf property. An enquiry was conducted and the respondent reserved orders on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 removing the petitioner as Muthavalli and also taking over the management of the Wakf. The writ petition is to quash the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2009. Though the order was pronounced on 09.11.2009, it is stated that the order is dated 29.07.2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after reserving orders on 29.07.2009, respondent issued show cause notice dated 10.09.2009. But, the petitioner did not send reply to the said show cause notice. The respondent had taken into account the said show cause notice, which was issued after reserving orders in the enquiry that was conducted agains...

Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Madras Cements Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the finding that the respondents are eligible to credit on repair and maintenance service etc. in their staff colony (residential colony of the assessees). 2. On hearing both sides I find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement Works - 2010 (8) STR 275 holding that nexus is required between the services and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods before the benefit of CENVAT credit can be extended in respect of such services and the assessees had to establish any such nexus. The Tribunal relied on the apex Court’s decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC). Even in today’s case the assessees has failed to establish any nexus between the services which are considered by them to be input service and manufacture or clearance of excisable goods and therefore the benefit...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Uma Mercantile (P) Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. Interest liability cast upon the importers has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), against which the Revenue is in appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. Order No. 46/2000 dated 29.8.2000 enhancing the assessable value of goods imported by the assessees under a Bill of Entry dated 23.8.1999 and directing payment of balance differential duty, confiscating the goods with an option to redeem on payment of fine and imposing penalty on the assessees was received on 14.9.2000. Such order was not challenged by the assessees. The assessees also did not produce the original Bill of Entry for the purpose of re-assessment. The Department also did not direct any action to call upon the assessees to produce the original Bill of Entry for getting reassessed. It is only in May 2003 that the Bill of Entry was produced by the assessees and re-assessed. Within five days of re-assessment, the balance duty was paid. In these circumstances, applying the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Customs ...

The Sub-post Master Vs. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk Producer and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

(The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the matured value of 3 bonds with interest and to pay Rs.35000/- as compensation. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.11.2006 in O.P.No.17/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainants/ respondents 1 and 2, had purchased three Kissan Vikas Patra (KVP), for a total sum of Rs.25000/-, from the opposite party post office. When the complainant made requisition, after the maturity period of 5 years over, they were informed, that the amount will be paid without interest, since the certificates were issued, in the name of the society, against the rules. Despite request, till date the amount has not been refunded, and the failure to refund the mat...

The Consolidated Hybrid Seeds Company Vs. M. Sekar and Others

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/ 3rd opposite party and 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,43,300/-. 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.5.12.2005 in O.P.No.11/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 3rd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant filed the case, on the following grounds: The complainant being an agriculturist, who is cultivating more than 14 acres of nanja lands, had purchased 30 Kgs. of CR 1009 (Savithri) paddy seeds, from opposite parties 1 and 2, manufactured by 3rd opposite party, on 6.8.2002. The said paddy seed was certified, and the period of paddy is 145 days to 165 days, having 80% germination. The complainant using the said paddy, preparing seedlings, replanted the same,...

M/S.Fayshaw Apparels, and ors.Vs. the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign E ...

Court: Chennai

1. These Appeals arise out of the Order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi dated 28.5.2010 in Appeal Nos.91, 92, 93 and 94 of 2010 rejecting the applications for dispensation of pre-deposit and directing the Appellants to make payment of full amount of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and holding that on failure to make full payment the appeals will be dismissed on that ground. M/s.Fayshaw Apparels is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2101 of 2010, M/s.Shaw Garments Pvt.Ltd. is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2103 of 2010 and B.P.Byram Shaw, the Managing Partner/Managing Director of the said firm and Company is the Appellant in C.M.A.Nos.2102 and 2104 of 2010.2. The brief facts are that the Appellant firm/Company are exporters of garments covered by eight shipping bills through ICD, Irugur, Coimbatore and the same were exported through Tuticorin Port. The value of the outstanding export proceeds is Rs.1,13,20,461/- in respect of M/s.Fayshaw Apparels and...

S.D.Albert Dayakaran Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police,

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.2184 of 2000, challenging the punishment order. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.4060 of 2006.2. The petitioner was served with a charge memo containing nine charges in P.R.No.147/98 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which is extracted as under:-1. Malingering by entering on medical leave from 23.01.98 after reporting sick on 22.01.98 without prior permission while the 12th Lok Sabha Election was on the card and the officers and men have been instructed not to enter on leave, by sending a VHF message 231105, dated 23.01.98 intimating that he entered on 5 days Medical leave from 23.01.98.2. Gross disobedience in sending telegram for extension of medical leave from 28.01.98, without sending the Medical Leave Certificate fo...