Chennai Court March 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.
Mrs.Baby and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
ORDER1. By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. The petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in C.C.No.225 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur, seek for a direction to call for the records relating to the above said calendar case and to quash the same.2. Factual aspects involved are briefly outlined below for better appreciation.The 2nd respondent herein is the wife of one Shanmuga Raja and the petitioners herein are her in-laws. The marriage between the said Shanmuga Raja and the 2nd respondent took place on 26.4.2004 and out of the wed-lock, the 2nd respondent gave birth to a male child on 24.2.2005. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant that her husband used to drink and assault her demanding money and jewels as dowry.3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were also in support of the husband of the defacto-complainant. According to the defacto-complainant, she was d...
A.N.Kumar Vs. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
COMMON 1. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1486 of 1988 and Tr.C.S.No.847 of 1993 dated 14.2.2001, whereby the learned single Judge decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff Devasthanam directing the Defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession and declining to grant the relief specific performance as prayed by the Defendant-A.N.Kumar. Since the points for determination in both the appeals are one and same, both the appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in Civil Suit No.1486 of 1988 filed before this Court.2. Case of Plaintiff-Devasthanam is that Plaintiff is the owner of the property measuring about 64 grounds in S.No.41, Sri Arunachalampuram in the village of Urur, erstwhile Saidapet Taluk. According to Plaintiff-Devasthanam, the said 64 grounds was leased to one A.Ranaganatha Mudaliar under lease deed dated 24.02.1937 for a perio...
M/S.Enterprise International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents, to assess the Bill of Entry No.781824, dated 15.2.2011, by extending the benefit of additional duty exemption in terms of Notification 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004.3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 15.2.2010, made in W.P.No.2301 of 2010 (M/s.Shiv Shanti Exim Pvt. Ltd V. The Commissioner of Customs), the following order is passed: i) The prayer for assessing the Bills of Entry by allowing the exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004, cannot be granted. ii) The respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the above said Bills of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a ...
M/S. Ambika Fashion Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.12.2002 made in Case No.9700285 of 1997 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, allowing in part by awarding a sum of Rs.6,600/- to the appellant as compensation.2. Having not been satisfied with the said award, the appeal has been filed.3.The short facts of the case, are, as follows:-(i) A consignment of art silk sarees weighing approximately 118 kgs. was entrusted to the Southern Railway for carriage and the same was booked in the break van of Navjeevan Express, Train No.6045, on 24.01.1997 as per R.R.No.315996 from Surat to Madras Central. The Railway Receipt was booked for the declared value of Rs.1,70,000/- and freight charges of Rs.920/- was paid to the respondents. The applicant was shocked to note that two bales of art silk sarees out of six bales were missing. Immediately, the applicant issued a notice dated 31.01.1997 complaining about the loss of two bales. Since ...
Mohammed Zubair Fauzal Awam Vs. State Rep by the Inspector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
ORDER1. Petitioner has been filed seeking a direction to call for the proceedings in X Crime No..559 of 2010 on the file of the respondents and to quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:The petitioner, a Srilankan Tamilian is temporarily residing at at 3F, III Floor, Seetha Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chenai-34. He is engaged in the business of Garments Export in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and is known to all businessmen in the Colombo business circle. He visited Chennai on 30.4.2006 for a business deal and also for his treatment. The petitioner has been staying in India till date without any adverse remakr against him. The petitioner would submit that he has been scrupulously following the rules and regulations regarding his stay and a certificate was issued by the Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam to the effect that he has no adverse remark as per the records available in F3 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai.3. While so, on the strength of a red alert notice dated 7...
M/S.Narendra Enterprises Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
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...
The Superintendent of Police Vs. Dhanasekar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award and decree dated 30.04.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.2.The short facts of the case, are, as follows:On 12.07.1998, at about 05.00 p.m., the petitioner was standing on the northern side of the east-pondy road and at that point of time, the respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-32-0106, came from west to east direction, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Hence, he had filed the compensation petition against the respondent for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest.3. The respondent had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident was committed by the driver of the vehicle. On 12.07.1998, the respondent's vehicle was proceeding in the east-pondy road towards Vill...
Chandran Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. The appellant/claimant has filed the above appeal in C.M.A.No.1623 of 2005, against the award and decree passed in O.P.No.3509 of 2000, dated, 01.11.2004 on awarding a compensation a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Not being satisfied with the said award the claimant has filed the above appeal for additional compensation a sum of 11,60,000/- with interest.2.The appellant/State Express Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal in C.M.A.No.4029 of 2005, against the award and decree passed in O.P.No.3509 of 2000, dated, 01.11.2004 on awarding a compensation a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award the appeal has been filed to scale down the said compensation.3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 31.07.1999, at around 11.20 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a bicycle on the New Mahabalipuram Road, Thiruvanmiyur from South to North direction and at t...
M/S. Devi Pesticides Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise has ordered recovery of Rs. 36,21,543/- as duty from the assessees herein together with interest and has also imposed penalty under Rule 173Q read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand arises as a result of holding that, upon forfeiture of facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis duty could not be paid by utilizing cenvat credit. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the period in this case is prior to 01.06.06, when statutory provisions were amended so as to bar utilization of cenvat credit for payment of duty in such a situation. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was entitled to utilize credit for payment of duty in the light of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision in the case of Noble Drugs Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nasik - 2007 (215) ELT 500 (Tri.- LB). However, as regards penalty, since there has been vio...
M/S. Excel Shipping Services Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has revoked the CHA licence issued to the appellants herein for a period of two years from the date of the order ie., 09.07.2010. Revocation arises as a result of violation by the CHA of clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004. 2. We have heard both sides. Regulation 13 (a) provides for obtaining authorization from the exporter, it is the case of the department that the assessee did not obtain written authorization from M/s. CTC, the exporter. Regulation 13(d) stipulates that the CHA should advice his clients to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non compliance, he shall bring the matter to the notice of the Dy. Commissioner/Asst. Commissioner of Customs. It is the case of the department, on the basis of the finding of the enquiry officer that the CHA had not advised his clients to comply with the provisions of the Act with all required information...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »