Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
M/S.L.S.K.Traders Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Astral Cables Limited Vs. the National Small Industries Corporation Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
COMMON 1. These appeals arise out of common order dated 18.2.2010, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the application - O.A.No.372 of 2005 filed by the 1st respondent under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. rejecting the plaint insofar as the 2nd defendant is concerned. Consequentially the learned single Judge dismissed the applications against defendant No.2 and vacated the interim injunction granted in so far as the 2nd defendant.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant/plaintiff is a limited Company having its registered office at Delhi and supplying cables to the Electricity Boards. The 1st respondent National Small Industries Corporation (in short, "NSIC") is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered Office at NSIC Bhawan, near Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. The 2nd respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in short, "TNEB") placed three purchase orders on the appellant/plaintiff Company -...
Tag this Judgment!S.Shanmugasundaram Vs. S.Murugamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. This Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.06.1999 made in R.E.A.No.882 of 1993 in R.E.P.No.2 of 1991 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Salem.2. The Decree-Holder is the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.1601 of 1985, for a declaration of the right over a common wall as per the partition deed dated 23.09.1991 and for a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to construct the wall. The trial Court by its Judgment and decree dated 30.04.1990, directed the construction of the wall as per the plan Exhibit A2 and the cost of such construction to be borne equally and for payment of rent and other reliefs. For better appreciation, the decree granted by the trial Court is extracted as hereunder:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED3. The petitioner filed R.E.P.No.2 of 1991, to execute such decree. The respondent filed a co...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jeba Mary Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 6.10.2010 in the light of the order in W.A.No.42 of 2007 dated 2.7.2009.2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was employed as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Karingal Section under the control of the third respondent and he died on 2.8.1991 at the age of 41 years while in service. He left behind him the his mother (petitioner's grandmother), his father (petitioner's grandfather), widow (petitioner's mother), four daughters including the petitioner herein. Petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of the family.3. On 31.7.1992 the petitioner's mother submitted a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 seeking compassionate appointment. On 28.11.1992 the third respondent returned the application a...
Tag this Judgment!T.T.G.industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORDER1. The petitioners 1 to 5 herein have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.559 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Consequent to the dismissal of their petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C, namely Crl.M.P.No.1519 of 2009 seeking an order of discharge from the said criminal case, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the correctness and legality of the said order by invoking the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C.2. Without there being any specific complaint made by a de facto complainant, the SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai, registered a case on "source information" in R.C.6/E/2005-CBI/Chennai and submitted a final report on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai alleging that the petitioners herein committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. Sec. 409, 420, 467, 467 r/w. 471 I.P.C and substantive offences thereof, probab...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer Vs. M.Ramakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society, represented by its Special Officer. The Society filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No.295 of 2004 dated 12.01.2007. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.4,95,200/- as due and payable to the first respondent.2. The writ petition was admitted on 03.04.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner Society to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the credit of the CP within a period of four weeks. It is fairly submitted that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount.3. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act) claiming subsistence allowance for the period from 01.03.1989 to 31.05.2004. He also stated that he had not been paid any subsistence allowance despite being suspended from service. But the calculation of subsistence allowance was done on ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. M/S.Kiran Machines and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORDER1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the State represented by SPE/CBI/EOW,Chennai against the orders of the learned trial Judge, namely the IX Additional Judge, City Civil Court (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Chennai, dated 15.06.2007 in Crl.M.P.Nos.93 to 97 of 2006 in C.C.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the said Court.2. Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2006 was filed by M/s. Kiran Machines and P.Mohanraj, Managing Partner of Kiran Machines, who had been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the above said calendar case. Crl.M.P.No.94 of 2006 was filed by P.Dhanraj and Gabriel De Prasad, who had been arraigned as Accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said calendar case. Crl.M.P.No.95, 96 and 97 of 2006 were filed by Jesu Nelson, S.Rajkumar and E.Rajagopal, who had been arraigned as Accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 in the above said calendar cases respectively. All the five criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (Spec...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Maruthi Mobiles Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. Considering the fact that the entire amount of tax and interest has been paid, and only penalty amount is in dispute, I waive the requirement of predeposit of penalty amount and with the consent of both sides proceed to hear and dispose the appeal today itself. 3. Shri M.N. Bharathi, Ld. Advocate hearing for the appellants fairly states that the appellants have not pleaded before the authorities below that their case is covered under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, since they had paid the entire amount of tax and interest before issue of Show Cause Notice. He states that for the first time this plea has been taken in the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. SDR, Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, states that since this plea was not taken before the authorities below, they had no occasion to examine the applicability of Section 73 of the facts of this case. 5. In view of the submissions made that the authorities below had no occasion to consider the applicability of...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Omega Granite Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sa ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. The above appeal was listed for final hearing on 13.12.2010 and adjourned on the ground of paucity of notice. It was listed again for regular hearing on 7.1.2011 when none was present for the appellants and fresh notice was directed to be issued returnable today. Even today, although notice has been issued, none appears on behalf of the assessees. It, therefore, appears that they are not interested in pursuing the case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. MISC application for change in cause title is allowed as the name of the company has been changed. The appellant’s name, M/s.Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. shall read as “M/s.Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.” 2. Now, I take up the appeals for hearing. I find that the issue relates to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported and the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the provisions of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act 1944. Therefore, in view of the first proviso to Section 35B, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted as the proviso stipulates that no appeal shall lie to the appellate Tribunal in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, if such order relates to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India. The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal. The papers are returned to the assessees for presentation before the proper forum. 3....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »