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.
Rajesh Das, I.P.S., S/O.Pranabandhu Das, Vs. Tamil Nadu State Human Ri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
R.Guna . Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the mother of the petitioner challenging an order of the second respondent in Memo No.206/2010 dated 12.04.2010, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in seven adverse cases namely (1) K 6 T.P.Chatram Police Station, Cr.No.748/2008 under section 379 IPC (2) G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Cr.No.901/2008 under section 379 IPC (3) G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Cr.No.931/2008 under section 379 IPC (4) G1 Vepery Police Station Cr.No.1029/2008 under section 379 IPC (5) F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Cr.No.1467/2009 under section 302 IPC (6) F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Cr.No.1502/2009 under sections 341, 336, 384, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC and (7) F...
Cce (Ltu), Chennai Vs. M/S. Eid Parry (i) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is admissibility of cenvat credit taken on inputs attributable to that portion of electricity transferred to the TNEB grid. According to the Revenue, proportionate credit is recoverable under Cenvat Credit Rules 14 and penalty imposable on the assessees in terms of Rule 15. 2. I have heard both sides. The case of the Revenue is based on Rule 6 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which applies in the case of common inputs being used both in the manufacture of exempted products as well as dutiable products. The issue now stands settled against the assesses by the decisions of the apex Court in CCE Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. - 2007 (214) ELT 481 (S.C.) and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (S.C.), wherein the apex Court has held that credit is not admissible on inputs attributable to that portion of electricity wheeled out and not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The Ld. Counsel on the other hand submits that ...
M/S. Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. Cenvat credit of Rs. 66,422/- has been disallowed to the assessees herein, on the ground that it was taken on the strength of two invoices issued by M/s. Sriram Textiles Pvt. Ltd., who are third stage dealers, and therefore such invoices have been held to be invalid document for the purpose of availing credit. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessees does not dispute the finding of denial of cenvat credit on merit. However, his contention is that the entire demand is barred by limitation, for the reason that the credit was availed in March, 2004 and the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 11.12.2006, and there is no charge of suppression in the show cause notice and moreover, the assessee had taken reasonable steps as required under the Rules to satisfy himself that the invoices on the strength of which he took credit contained all the necessary particulars including registration number of M/s. Sriram Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 3. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the authorities below on time ba...
M/S. Chandrasekar and Co Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The assesses challenge the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that non-payment of service tax on Commercial construction complex (for LIC) was not deliberate and intentional and therefore extended period is not attracted against them. There is no finding by the authorities below that the assessees had knowledge that they were liable to pay service tax on their activity of construction of commercial complex for LIC which is a Public Sector Undertaking and therefore, the charge of suppression has not been established against them. In this view of the matter, I hold that the provisions of Section 78 are not attracted against the assessees and they are, therefore, not liable to penalty under that Section. I therefore set aside the penalty and allow the appeal....
David Friedman, Managing Director, M/S. Fort India Ltd Vs. E.R. Ravikr ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/1st and 2nd opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to replace a new Ford Ikon Car, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, the appeal in 539/2006 by the 2nd opposite party and FA.36/2007 by the 1st opposite party to set aside the order, by the District Forum dt.25.1.2006 in CC No.28/2005.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellant, in F.A.No.36/2007 and F.A.No.539/2006. 2. The complainant, who is arrayed as respondent in both the appeals, had purchased a Ford Ikon, vehicle, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer, on 18.10.2002, and the Registration No. is TN-10-E 5922. While the car was under the warranty, the complainant handed over the vehicle for last free service at Chennai Fo...
M/S.B.Anandkumar and Co, and ors. Vs. Southern Petrochemicals Industri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1.The Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this First Appeal A.S.No.702/2002 as against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.1998 made in O.S.No.4932 of 1996 on the file of the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The trial Court in the Judgment in O.S.4932/1996 dated 24.02.1998 has among other things held that 'the Defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs.1,85,701/- to the Plaintiff with 20% interest and also held that the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is correct and resultantly, partly decreed the suit etc.,'. Further, the trial Court has also opined that the Plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,85,701/- with 20% interest from the date of plaint till the date of decree and to claim further interest at 12% from the date of decree till the date of realisation from the Defendants D1 to D3 with proportionate cost. Moreover, it has held that the Defendants D4 to D7 are liable to the decree amount only to the tune of Rs.24,000/-' and as against the Defendants D...
J.Venkatesan. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order in W.P.No.14167/1995 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition under which the Appellant has sought for quashing G.O.(Vamayam) No.725 dated 25.09.1995.2. Brief facts are that 3rd Respondent College is a private College which falls within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Due to the irregularities committed by the Management, the College was taken over by the Government vide G.O.No.1476 Education dated 16.7.1981 under Sec.30 of the Act. The administration of the College was with the Government till 16.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was the care taker of the College from 17.7.1981 to till the formation of Vellore region. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education/Joint Director of Collegiate Education of the region discharged the duties of the Secretary of the Private Aided College in the capa...
M/S.Tablets India Limited. Vs. the Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated 02.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.30730 of 2003 in and by which the learned Judge declined to interfere with the orders of the first and second respondents regarding non grant of rebate of Rs.5,54,379/- as per Rule 12(1) (b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period from May 2000 to March 2001. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of I.V.Fluids which were periodically being exported by the appellant outside the country. It is claimed that the appellant was operating both under Rule 12(1)(b) and Rule 13 respectively which are relating to export. Under Rule 13, it was permissible for the assesse to clear the final products for export without payment of central excise duty by executing a bond equivalent to the central excise duty payable on such goods exported. As regards the exempted goods or goods cleared at nil rate of duty, as an export benefit, the rebate/refund of duty paid on the inputs which f...
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. P. Sakunthala, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1.One Palanichamy, S/o Ramasamy Gounder, aged 36 years who was the proprietor of M/s Spear Tex, a Hosiery Manufacturing Unit, died in a road accident on 17.7.97. The accident occurred in the following manner.2. On 17.7,1977, around 1.45 p.m, the deceased was proceeding from West to East in the Thirupur Ramnagar I Street, driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN39A 6800. He was proceeding in a normal speed. One Chandrasekaran was travelling as a pilliar rider. While so, a lorry bearing Registration No.TDQ 2854, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by one Iman Singh, came behind the motor cycle and dashed. In the result of which, both the driver and the pillian driver fell down and the lorry ran over the said Palanichamy causing multiple injuries. He was taken to a private hospital, Thirupathur and then to Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. A case was registered against the driver of the lorry and he admitted the offence.3. The 1st respondent, being the wife and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »