Chennai Court February 2011 Judgments

R.Chandra Vs. the Director of Medical Education and anr.

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. The petitioner joined as staff nurse in Government General Hospital, Chennai on 25.10.1976 and was regularized as staff nurse on 13.11.1978 on completion of probation period. The petitioner completed B.Sc. Nursing course in the year 1992 and was assigned Civil Nursing List (CNL) No.3260.2. The petitioner applied for leave and went abroad in the month of December 1994 and was there till February, 1999. The petitioner was not allowed to join duty, as she was unauthorisedly absent from duty. However, vide order 15.02.1999, the petitioner was allowed to resume her duty subject to outcome of disciplinary action, which was proposed against her. The petitioner was found guilty of charge of unauthorized absence and accordingly, was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for four years.3. The petitioner accepted the punishment, awarded to her. After expiry of punishment period, unauthorized absence of the petitioner was regularized as extra ordinary leave...

M/S.Raghavendra Construction Company Vs. the General Manager and ors.

Court: Chennai

1. This intra Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 10.11.2009 made in O.P.No.573 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge has set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal in so far as it relates to interest pendente lite under Claim No.11.2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:The work of "Gauge Conversion between Madras Beach to Tiruchirappalli Villupuram Tiruchirappallai Section proposed regarding of existing Metre Gauge track between Vridhachalam and Ariyalur Stations in Reaches III and IV" was entrusted by the Railways to the Appellant under letter of acceptance dated 17.9.1996 stipulating the completion period of nine months. The work was therefore to be completed by 16.6.1997. Agreement was also entered into on 30.4.1997 in agreement No.155/CN/97. There were number of extensions and the work was extended upto 31.12.1998. Certain disputes and differences arose and the appellant prayed for arbitration. In all, 11 claims were raised by the appellant and 3 counter claims by t...

M/S.Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2011Mad66(FB)

1. These two appeals have been filed against the order passed in W.P.Nos.17555 of 2008 and 27291 of 2008. 2. In W.P.No. 17555 of 2008, the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner (respondents 2 and 3) claims to be the owner of Plot No.223, measuring 2500 sq.ft. comprised in survey Nos.98/5, 98/2A/2 and 98/2B/3, Kakkalur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. The said property allegedly purchased by the writ petitioner by means of registered sale deed dated 13th Nov., 1996, from the 2nd respondent/appellant. She claims that the entire sale consideration was paid and she was also put in possession. However, the 2nd respondent/appellant unilaterally executed the cancellation deed on 27th Aug., 2007, which was registered by the 1st respondent, being Document No.16826/07. The 2nd respondent/appellant denied the allegation and stated that the writ petitioner was not in possession of the property and the appellant continued to be in possession of the same. It was also contended that ...

G.Suresh Kumar Vs. O.L.Muthu

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.12.2002 in R.C.A.No.160 of 2002 on the of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2002 in M.P.No.35 of 2001 in RCOP.No.897 of 1999 on the file of the XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The tenant is the petitioner and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent herein filed RCOP.No.897 of 1999, before the learned Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) & 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The tenant resisted the eviction petition by filing a counter statement. The respondent filed M.P.No.35 of 2001 under Section 11(4) of the Act to direct the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent into Court and continue to deposit the future rents. According to the landlord, the mon...

S. Usha Vs. the General Manager and ors.

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. The petitioner entered into an agreement with Southern Railway through its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Palghat on 19.09.2006 for lease of advertisement rights for display board at the specified area of 9904 sq.ft at Salem Junction Railway Station. The period of agreement was for three years, commencing from 24.04.2006.2. In terms of the agreement, executed between the parties, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.9,01,265/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) by way of demand draft towards licence fee as per terms of the agreement. The licence fee was to be enhanced by 10% every year.3. On receipt of licence fee, the petitioner was allotted an area of 9,904 sq.ft at Salem Junction to display advertisement board.4. During pendency of agreement, a decision was taken by the Railways for bifurcating the Palghat division, by creating a new division known as Salem Junction, with effect from 01.11.2007. Due to creation of Salem division, the agree...

S.Balasubramanian Vs. B.K.Krishnamurthy and anr.

Court: Chennai

1. This Original Side Appeal arises against the order and decreetal order of the learned single Judge made in Application No. 549 of 2010 in C.S.No.711 of 2007.2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant, the first respondent was the plaintiff and the second respondent was the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed the application NO.549 of 2010 under Order XXIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. to permit him to withdraw the suit in C.S.No.711 of 2007 with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and also to direct the return of the original documents filed along with the suit.3. The first respondent filed C.S.No.711 of 2007 on the file of this court for declaration and permanent injunction.4. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, on 22.7.1999, the appellant/first defendant's father, viz., S.Sundaram Pillai, entered into a joint venture agreement with the first respondent/plaintiff for the purchase and development of the suit property and a sum of Rs.13,73,942...

Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Ial India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. Heard both sides. 2. In this case, the department has come in appeal as the penalty imposed by the original authority has been set aside by the lower appellate authority. I find that the respondents, a steamer agent, had not taken into account the delivery order charges and bill of lading charges in the taxable value. However, after the same was pointed out, the respondents have paid the differential tax amount along with interest before issue of show cause notice by the department. There is no allegation of fraud, suppression etc., in this case. As such, the case is covered by the provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, there is no case of imposition of penalty in this case and the departments appeal has no merit. Hence, the same is dismissed....

Noble Elasto Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.3/2010 dt. 22.3.2010. 2. The finding against the appellant is that when they were about to cross the exemption limit available under Notification No.8/03-CE dt. 1.3.03, the appellant used invoices of another firm to clear excisable goods manufactured by them. The officers visited the factory premises on 1.2.2007. An amount of Rs.2,65,447/- was paid towards duty liability on various dates before issue of show cause notice. Original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.2,28,205/- and did not impose any penalty on the appellant firm but imposed penalties on the partners of the appellant firm and also on partners of the firm in whose name the goods manufactured by the appellant firm were cleared. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking imposition of penalty of equal amount on the appellant firm and the Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs.2,28,205/- on the a...

Rajan Tex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.72/09 dt. 22.4.2009. Heard both sides. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the premises of the appellants were visited by the officers on 23.1.2004 which revealed that appellants have manufactured and sold some quantity of unprocessed fabrics under the invoice of M/s.G.M.Textiles which was a fictitious, non-existent unit. The proprietor of the appellant firm admitted the above and paid a sum of Rs.48,239/- on 27.1.2004. The original authority in pursuance of show-cause notice dt. 16.7.07 confirmed a demand of Rs.67,561/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also appropriated the amount of Rs.48,239/- paid by the appellants during the course of investigation. The order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the demand ...

M/S. Saint GobaIn Glass India Ltd. Vs. Cc (Air), Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. Heard both sides. 2. In this appeal, the appellants are not contesting the classification and the rate of duty determined by the Customs authorities. Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the challenge is limited to confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. He states that the impugned goods imported by the appellants were described as follows along with the Customs Tariff Heading numbers in the Bill of Entry filed by them:- CTH No. Description of the items 26169090 Planar Target-Silver-AG 3099*28*12.7 Mono Block Version -3N7-1 No. 26080000 Rotative Target-Zinc-Anal Type Mag or Qct Dim 3191*9/13 MM 3N Direct Cast - 4 Nos. 25059000 Rotative Target - Silica Siai Type Vac-Mag or Qct Dim 3191 *9/13 MM Sprayed - 6 Nos. 3. Both sides agree that on examination, the description indicated by the appellants have not been changed by the assessing officer but only the goods were found to be classifiable under ...