Chennai Court January 2011 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.
G.Ganesan and ors. Vs. P.Sundari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
COMMON " Is an unprobated Will admissible in evidence to prove the cancellation of an earlier Will upon which letters of administration is sought for? It is on this question these appeals resolve around.2.Seeking letters of administration with a certified copy of the registered Will said to have been executed by one Mrs.Saraswathiammal on 22.06.1990 at Chennai in the presence of witnesses the appellants filed an application. Since it was opposed by the respondents herein, as per Order XXV Rule 55 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, it was converted as a suit and numbered as TOS No.38/2004. The testatrix died on 27.08.2001. According to the appellants, the said Will was the last Will of the deceased Saraswathiammal. The respondents herein who are the defendants in the suit have filed a written statement wherein, they have stated that the registered Will dated 22.06.1990 referred to above was subsequently cancelled by Mrs.Saraswathiammal during her life time by another Will dated 1...
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. the Tamil Nadu Informatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. This appeal by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC for short) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 07.01.2010 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.22479 of 2009.2. The appellant filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the first respondent herein.3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow campus. The second respondent herein submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sought for information relating to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department in the examination conducted during 1999. The second respondent in the said application sought for the following details:- 1.How many A.E(Civil) were selected by C.E.S. 1999 (TNEB) through TNPSC?2. The name of the selected A.Es (Civil), the total marks secured by them, their rank, their c...
The Land Acquisition Special Officer Vs. G.Periyannan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. Heard.2. These four appeals were directed against LAOP Nos.44/2003, 45/2003, 25/2004 and 26/2004 respectively. In LAOP Nos.44 and 45 of 2003 judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court on 30.08.2005. In LAOP Nos.25 and 26 of 2004, a judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court on 23.3.2006.3. The aggrieved land owner, who is the respondent in A.S.No.490 of 2006 had also filed Cross Objection 18 of 2007 seeking for further compensation.4. The appellant land acquisition officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Tindivanam by an Award No.16/2001 dated 20.11.2001 acquired the land of the respondents in these appeals. The lands were acquired for the purpose of gauge conversion of the Railway Line between Chennai and Tiruchirapalli. The lands of the respondents in the Appeals were situated in Tindivanam Town in various re-survey numbers. The Acquiring Authority fixed the market rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.96,900/- per acre (Rs.969 per cent). 5.The...
M/S.Aruna Constructions (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
ORDER1. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. The petitioner company has got leasehold right in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 4 acres and 22,059 sq.ft.in S.No.421 of St.Thomas Mount Village, Saidapet Taluk, which was actually transferred by the then East India Company to one Amoor Chetty on 23.04.1869. The petitioner has purchased the leasehold right under a registered document on 30.08.1990 vide Document No.2798/90. It appears that under the settlement proceedings, the petitioner company has approached the Assistant Settlement Officer, who has issued patta and that was reversed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, who, by invoking the suo motu powers under the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition Act, took up the matter and concluded that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was without jurisdiction. However, the petitioner's...
Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The amount of 8% of the price as required under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was recovered by the assessees from their customers. The departments treats these amounts as additional consideration requiring them to be paid to the government. 2. We have heard both sides and find that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Unison Metals Ltd. and Others Vs CCE Ahmedabad and Others [2006-TIOL-1337]. It is not disputed that the assessees herein deposited whatever amounts which had already been collected by them from their customers. The ratio of the Larger Bench decision being squarely applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessee being an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, clearance from the Committee on Disputes is required to pursue the appeal. No clearance is on record and the appeal is an old one. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of COD clearance with liberty to the assessee to apply for restoration in the event of clearance being granted....
Jalan Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Ld. counsel for the appellants has sought adjournment on the ground of ill-health. However, we find that this appeal has been coming up for regular hearing from time to time and has been adjourned at the request of assessee's counsel. We therefore see no reason to keep the appeal pending any further and accordingly dismiss the same for non-prosecution....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. V.T.Dyers and Screen Print ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Heard both sides on the appeals of the Revenue against restriction of the duty demands to Rs.5,30,822/- (E/532/04) and Rs.32,85,355/- (E/533/04) and setting aside of penalties. 2. We find that on merits, namely, as to whether the assessee can utilize deemed credit for clearances of cotton fabrics, the issue stands decided in their favour by Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2008 (230) ELT 465 covering the period prior to amendment of Central Excise Rules (the period in dispute in these appeals is also prior to such amendment). In the light of the Tribunal s order cited supra, we hold that the assessee is entitled to utilize deemed credit on cotton fabrics clearances; however, in the light of the same Tribunal s order, we uphold the liability of the assessee to penalty but reduce the same to Rs.15,000 in E/532/2004 and Rs.50,000/- in E/533/2004. 3. The appeals of the Revenue are thus partly allowed....
Maluram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has confiscated cosmetics and toiletries (hair care and dental care products) imported from Korea under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of undervaluation, with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.20 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs under Section 112 (a) ibid. Declared value of the goods has been rejected and re-determined at Rs.79,00,384/-. 2. The only plea of the appellants is for reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty as they were misled by their clearing agent. However, we find that this is not sufficient for the purpose of extending any leniency in the quantum of fine and penalty, particularly, when the entire final penalty stands adjusted by deposit of Rs.30 lakhs made by the appellants on 13.10.2003. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Indian Bank Vs. Smt.S.Maheswari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Since these two writ petitions arise out of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in I.D.No.105 of 1992 dated 24.04.1997, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to in the array of parties in W.P.No.17493 of 1998.2. The petitioner Mrs.Maheswari was appointed as a clerk cum typist in the respondent Bank and she joined duty on 24.02.1986 at Kumarapalayam Branch. On confirmation in services, she was transferred to the Zonal Office, Coimbatore at her request and accordingly she joined duty on 08.12.1990. On reporting duty on 08.12.1989, the petitioner informed that she would be availing joining time of 6 days from 09.12.1989 and report for duty on 15.12.1989. On 15.12.1989 as assured by her earlier she did not turn up for duty. In this regard, the Zonal Office, Coimbatore of the respondent Bank sent a letter dated 30.12.1989 to the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »