Chennai Court September 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.
Nagaraju. Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 2.1.2010, whereby the petitioner's son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under the provisions of the Act. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge. 3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in seven adverse cases namely (1) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.144/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.147/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (3) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.169/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.639/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (5) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1294/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (6) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1316/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; and (7) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1337/2009 under Sec.379 IPC, and also in a ground case in Crime No.1353/2009 of S-15 Selaiyur PS registered under...
D. Jabeen Vs. the Commissioner of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. When the matter is taken up for consideration, It is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the order of detention under challenge has already been revoked by the Advisory Board in G.O.Rt.No.1917 dated 24.5.2010. Hence the request by the petitioner for setting aside the order does not require consideration and the habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Fenner India Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether cost of additional testing concluded at customer’s request and borne by the customer is includible in the assessable value of goods, as contended by the Revenue, stands decided against the Revenue by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs Bhaskar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (167) ELT 189]. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s appeal and is hence dismissed....
Srikrishna Ultramarine and Chemicals Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein are manufacturers of Ultramarine Blue falling under CET sub heading 3212.90. They have another unit engaged in the repacking of the goods. The repacking unit received the duty paid Ultramarine Blue in bulk consignment from the main unit and repacked the same into smaller packing of various brands and sizes and cleared the same on payment of duty to various buyers, including consignment agents and it was found that they had cleared excisable goods to their consignment agents at Andhra Pradesh at a value less than the price at which they were sold by the consignment agents to the ultimate buyers. As per the amended provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the definition of “place of removal” includes depots, consignment agents or any other place or premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the assessee and hence the sale price at any of these places of removal will be the normal price for the purpo...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Damodar Home Industrie ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. The respondents are not represented. However, their written submission to decide the appeal on merits has been taken on record. Heard ld. SDR Shri T.H.Rao. 2. In this case, the respondents have received “Goods Transport Operator Service” during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. They were issued with a show cause notice demanding the service tax for the above period on 9.2.2001. The original authority had confirmed a demand of Rs.80,090/- and also had demanded interest for the same. The lower appellate authority, on appeal from the respondents, has set aside the original authority’s order applying the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LH Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut [2004 (165) ELT 161]. The said decision of the Tribunal has been subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC). In view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the lower appellate authority for granting relief to th...
S.Kumar ... Vs.The Superintendent of Prisons,and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the charge memo dated 07.08.2009 issued to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is working as a Carpentry Instructor and posted in the Central Prison, Vellore. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that; the District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem preferred a complaint before the Crime Branch against Tmt.Palaniammal, Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thiru.Senthamizh @ Ravi, Secondary Grade Teacher and Thiru.Gnanasekaran, Secondary Grade Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said complaint, there is no allegation made against him. During January 2002, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem against eight accused and the petitioner was arrayed as the 6th accused, which according to the petitioner is based on a statement given by the second accused. The case has ...
G.Annamalai ..Vs. P.Balasubramaniam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has brought forth this petition for the production of his daughter Kalairasi before this Court.2.In the last hearing that was on 26.8.2010, it was represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that a communication was received by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station from the detenue to the effect that herself and the first respondent got married and have been living together. A copy of the said communication produced by the State was also perused by the Court. However, at the request of the petitioner's Counsel, it was adjourned to this day. 3.Now, the learned for the petitioner is also present. In view of the statement made by the State and recorded in the last hearing, no further order is required in the petition. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of....
R.Eswari. Vs. the District Collector Dharmapuri, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. The petitioner has approached the Labour Court, Salem by filing a petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in C.P.No.129/99 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,18,340/-towards the arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1998 against the second respondent. The Labour Court, Salem has no doubt passed an exparte award on 18.10.2001 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum. But it remains a fact that the award of the Labour Court which was passed on 18.10.2001 has become final and the second respondent has not taken any steps to challenge the same. After the award was passed, the Government also issued an order in G.O.(D)No.588, Labour and Employment(G-2) Department, dated 26.7.2002 under Section 33-C(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act directing the District Collector, Dharmapuri to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. In spite of the said Government Order having been passed in 2002 itself...
The Secretary to Government Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in case No.2096/2000/KSJ, dated 29.03.2002.2. The petitioner is the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department and the challenge is to an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission awarding a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the respondents 2 & 3 for the death of their minor son with a direction to the State Government to pay the compensation by stating that the State is vicariously liable for the act done by its employees. 3. The facts of the case are that; the third respondent is the wife of the second respondent and their son Velan aged about 2 years was under the care and custody of a Child Care Centre, in Sanipatti village, Dharmapuri District. The allegation is, on 10.01.2000 at about 12.00 noon, when their son Velan was at the Centre to have the nutritious meal provided by the State...
J.Vijay. Vs. the Inspector of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Vijay has brought forth this petition seeking the production of his 18 month's old child Dhakshan by the respondents 2 to 8 before the Court. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents 2, 3 and 8 were served with notice, but not replied. As regards the respondents 4 to 7, notice returned unclaimed. The Court also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent State. 3.The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit and also the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner married the daughter of the respondents 2 and 3 on 28.5.2007; that as a result of the wedlock, a child was born on 12.10.2008; that after the birth of the child, while she was found in a frustrated mood, the same was informed to the respondents 2 and 3, the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, and also others namely the responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »