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.
P.Thangavelu. Vs. Director of School Education, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner is a B.T.Assistant in Government High School. He obtained higher qualifications and he was granted incentive increments for the same before pay revision. 2.After pay revision, the 3rd respondent who is junior to the petitioner obtained higher qualification and he was granted incentive increments. Since he was given incentive increments after pay revision, the junior got more pay. Hence an anomaly arose. The petitioner seeks pay on par with the pay of his junior. 3.The petitioner cannot be penalised for acquiring higher qualification at an earlier point of time. It is well settled that the seniors are entitled to equal pay on par with his juniors. The junior was granted higher pay since he obtained higher qualification after the pay revision. This could not be a reason to deny the equal pay for the petitioner. 4.Hence the writ petition is allowed and this Court directs the respondents R1 and R2 to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with the 3rd respondent with effect...
R.Visweswaran Nair, and ors. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The writ petitioners retired from service in between 01.01.1996 and 30.06.1996. Their grievance is that they were discriminated in the matter of pension, when compared to the persons who retired prior to 01.01.1996 and the persons who retired after 30.06.1996. 2. Hence, the petitioners have filed the batch of Original Applications in O.A.Nos.2694, 2946, 3353 and 3790 of 2000, to declare that G.O.Ms.Nos.174 dated 21.04.1998 read with G.O.Ms.No.500 dated 16.09.1998, G.O.Ms.No.740, dated 29.12.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 18.05.1999 issued by the respondent are unconstitutional and void with reference to the petitioners and for a direction to the respondent to grant the petitioners the same rate of pension as is granted to employees who retired before 01.01.1996 or after 01.07.1996 with all arrears of pension and other benefits with effect from 01.01.1996. 3. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.Nos.4...
R.N.Shanmugavadivel, and anr. Vs. R.N.Myilsami, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a prayer for declaration hat the defendants do not have any right to the properties described in the plaint Schedule. Ofcourse the plaintiff also sought for consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. 2.The trial court even before taking the plaint on file returned the plaint for two reasons. The first one is that the negative prayer sought for by the plaintiff will have to be properly couched, as the prayer as such sought for by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The second reason is that the said prayer for declaratory decree shall be valued under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. As there was resistance on the part of the plaintiff, the matter was heard by the trial court and a final order was passed by the Trial Court reiterating the original stand that the pray...
M.Sundaram. Vs. the District Collector Dharmapuri, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner entered service as Panchayat Assistant in Krishnagiri Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District, on 05.07.1977. Initially he was appointed as Part Time Panchayat Clerk at Dhandukanalli Village Panchayat, Dharmapuri District. His services were regularised by the respondent District Collector as Panchayat Assistant with effect from 01.01.1991. 2.While so, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 29.01.2000 stating that an enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner as he committed grave irregularities. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2000 terminating the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. 3.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3116 of 2006 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2000 of the respondent. 4.While admitting the Original Application on 28.04.2000, the Tribunal granted interim stay. Pursuant to the order of int...
M/S. Sri Kaliswari Fireworks Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeal vide letter dated 27.8.2010. Leave granted - the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
M/S. Madhan Labs (P) Ltd Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessees against the confirmation of demand of Rs.1,31,355/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-, on the ground of non-appearance before him. 2. We have heard both sides. The assessees explain that they had shifted their factory from the premises in Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kirumanbakkam, Pondicherry to Semmandalam, Cuddalore and had addressed a communication on 26.7.1999 showing their current address. The prayer is for setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the case to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision on merits after issuing notice of personal hearing to the Semmandalam, Cuddalore, address. 3. Since the appellants are available at the Cuddalore address, and can therefore be heard on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after issuing notice of personal hearing to the address given in the Memora...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Flowline Engineering P. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. In this case the matter had come up before the Tribunal earlier and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating-Commissioner to grant the abatement on the assessable value treating the invoice value as cum-duty price. The adjudicating-Commissioner has accordingly re-determined the duty and penalty as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the adjudicating-Commissioner has been reviewed by the Board and in pursuance of the review order, the present appeal has been filed. We find that the Department had not come in appeal against the order of the Tribunal and since the Commissioner has merely complied with the direction of the Tribunal, his order cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the issue regarding availability of cum-duty price assessment has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). As such, the appeal filed by the Dep...
M/S. Raja Metal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In spite of several opportunities extended to the assessees for rectifying defects by paying the balance appeal fee of Rs.5,000/- and producing proof of receipt of impugned order, the defects still remain. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal along with stay application in terms of Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Dynacast Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the setting aside of the liability to interest upon the assessees, by the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. We have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the counter filed by the Revenue before him to hold that the Revenue has accepted that no penalty and interest are imposable. However, it is clarified that what was meant by the statement of the counter was that interest is not leviable in situations in clandestine removal and the statement in the counter is not to be interpreted as meaning that no interest is payable by the assessees. In other words, normal interest under Section 11AB for the period 11.5.2001 onwards is leviable. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts such liability to interest. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it sets aside interest liability, and allow the appeal by holding that the assessees are liable to pay interest from 11.5.2001 onwards....
Cce, Chennai Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Availment of CENVAT credit on parts of capital goods has been objected to by the Department. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the adjudicating authority against whose order the Revenue had preferred an appeal before him, had based the order on Commissioner’s Order No. 3/2002 dated 4.2.2002 extending credit. Although the order dated 4.2.2002 extends credit on capital goods, and the case of the Revenue before the Tribunal in appeal is that the items in question in the present case are parts of capital goods and not capital goods themselves, we see no merit in the Revenue’s appeal for the reason that even parts of capital goods are eligible to credit. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »