Chennai Court February 2011 Judgments
Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is an employer. They have come forward to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act made in P.G.A.No.8 of 2004 dated 08.06.2004. By the impugned order, the first respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the second respondent Controlling Authority made in P.G.Case No.29 of 2003 dated 14.08.2003.2. The writ petition was admitted on 26.07.2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. The third respondent employee filed a vacate stay application in WVMP.No.305 of 2005 together with supporting counter affidavit dated 17.11.2004, but the matter was not taken up.3. Heard the arguments of Mr.H.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.C.Monica, representing Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the third respondent.4. The facts leading to the filing of the wr...
Tag this Judgment!T.Elavarasan Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased 7 gold chains (350 gms), vide Invoice No.100047, dated 2.9.2010, from M/s.Arthesdam Jewellery, Singapore. The petitioner had arrived at the Chennai airport, on 4.9.2010, along with the gold chains. Immediately, on his arrival he had declared before the Airport Customs Officers about the possession of the gold chains. However, without accepting the declaration made by the petitioner they had taken his passport and they had threatened that he would be arrested it he did not sign the statement written by the customs officers. Thereafter, he was allowed to leave the airport.3. It has been further stated that, in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner, for the release of the gold jewels and to return his passport, the Superintendent of Air Intelligence Unit had issued summons to the petitioner to appea...
Tag this Judgment!Elgi Equipments Workers and Staff Union and anr. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The two petitioners herein have filed the writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the Union of India vide its statutory notification No.G.S.R.591(E), dated 22.09.2006, wherein and by which, after receiving objections from all concerned, final gazette notification was made. By the said notification, the wage limit for coverage of an employee under the ESI Act was increased from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.10,000/-. The amendment made to Rule 50 of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950 was under challenge. The amendment came into force with effect from 01.01.2006.2. Infact even during the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Government by G.S.R.349(E) dated 20.04.2010 had increased the coverage limit from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, that is not under challenge in this writ petition.3. In the present writ petition, the first petitioner is the Trade Union and the second petitioner is one A.Rajamani, who is said to be a worker employed by the third respondent Management. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!N.Chinnavan Vs. the Management and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The respective petitioners in all these writ petitions were all Branch Managers working in the first respondent Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Dharmapuri. They had filed Claim Petitions before the second respondent - Labour Court at Salem under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act' for short) claiming salary, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund, leave salary and gratuity varying different amounts. The Labour Court numbered those claim petitions with various claim petition numbers and issued notice to the first respondent management.2. The first respondent management filed a common counter affidavit stating that the petitioners do not have any right to file claim petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Act inasmuch as they were all working as managers in the various branches of the bank and they are not ''workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and hence, the...
Tag this Judgment!K.Ravi Petitioner Vs. K.Victoria and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORDER1. The legal representative of the petitioner in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.114 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur is the revision petitioner.2. The suit in O.S.No.236 of 1988 (later re-numbered as O.S.No.114 of 2002) was filed by one Kannappan, claiming to be the owner of the suit property, for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant in that suit viz., Venkiah alias Venkatesalu was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site and without the consent of the plaintiff, the said tenant Venkiah alias Venkatesalu sublet the portion of the land let out to him and also sold the superstructure to one Krishnan Nair and the second defendant Bhakyam, who claims to be the wife of Krishnan Nair, was only a sub-tenant and she is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the main tenant was not in possession of the property and therefore, the suit was filed for the relief prayed for....
Tag this Judgment!P.Natarajan and anr. Vs. D.Lawrence
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) against the judgment decree dated 19.12.2006 in O.S.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:(i) The suit properties stand in the name of both the defendants. Though they have purchased the same under different sale deeds, the entire extent of 3.75 acres forms single plot with common boundaries.(ii) The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendants on 04.05.2005 for Rs.10,37,500/- and the plaintiffs paid as an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants. They agreed to receive the balance sum of Rs.8,37,500/- within two months from the date of the said sale agreement. They also agreed to produce the original title deed, survey sketch, chitta extract and annual rental value certificate in respect of the suit properties. (iii) In spite of the plaintiff's repeated demands, the defendants have produced only the chitta extract and then produced the Encumbra...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Symrise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 06/2010 dated 09.07.2010, by which a demand of Rs. 40,490/- has been made after denying cenvat credit on “Outdoor Catering Services” along with interest. The Commissioner (A) has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings and Others Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2010 (19) STR 172 (Tri.-Chen.). 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue is squarely governed by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Others reported in 10-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST. 3. Ld. DR submits that the order of the in the case of M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings and Others Tribunal has been appealed by the party and the matter is before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 4.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in...
Tag this Judgment!Jayavarma Knitters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we waive predeposit of service tax together with interest and penalty and proceed to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides as the issue lies within a narrow compass. 2. The assessees had availed goods transport agency service and the exemption contained in Notification No.32/2004 dt. 2.12.2004 for the purpose of paying service tax on the amount paid for transportation of the goods. The benefit of notification has been denied on the ground that the assessee has not fulfilled the condition set out in the notification for the reason that (a) the endorsement relating to non-availment of credit on inputs/capital goods by the goods transport agency under Notification No.12/03 was subsequent and (b) there was no declaration regarding non-availment of benefit of CENVAT credit of duty by the goods transport agency. 3. We have perused the copies of the invoices containing the declaration regarding non-availment...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. At the outset, we note that out of the total demand of Rs.42,31,516/-, Rs.18,12,080/- stands reversed. We accept the payment already made as sufficient for the purpose of compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and waive predeposit of the balance amounts and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal which is taken up for final hearing today, with the consent of both sides, as the issue in dispute stands decided in the case of the same assessee vide Final Order.797/10 dt. 19.7.2010. 2. The impugned order was passed following the ratio of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CCE Thane Vs Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. [2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.)]. Law has been amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2010. Hence taking note of the retrospective change, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority for taking into account the retrospectively amended provision ...
Tag this Judgment!BopkIn International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The application for early hearing of the above appeal is allowed as we find that the issue in dispute stands covered by the earlier order in M/s.Lukkad Impex and Others - Final Order No.1121 to 1123/10 dt. 7.10.2010. We, therefore, take up the appeal itself for final hearing today. 2. The issue relates to clearance of goods described as “children toys”. The department is of the view that the test report and certificate did not link the goods imported as the toys imported did not contain details of the manufacturer’s name and address and details of year of manufacture. The consignment was, therefore, held not to conform to DGFT Notification No.113/(RE-2008)/ 2004-2009 dated 16.6.2009 and the goods were hence confiscated with option of re-export. 3. We find that in the case of M/s.Lukkad Impex cited supra, we have held that since the restriction imposed by the Government on import of toys is due to health concerns and is also in public interest...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »