Chennai Court June 2011 Judgments
M/S. Spac Tapioca Products India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The dispute in this case is as to whether the appellants can take credit of duty paid on the impugned goods. The issue is squarely covered by a decision of Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) holding that credit in respect of duty paid on the impugned steel items cannot be taken for the reasons stated therein. Both sides agree that the issue involved in this case is no different from the one dealt in the case of Vandana Global (supra). Hence applying the ratio of the said Larger Bench decision, the impugned order is sustained and the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Nataraj Vs. K.Dharmaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
Prayer:- The Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. dated 17.03.2009 made in 12 Register No.1372 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and to allow the above criminal revision petition.1.The revision is filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the private complaint filed under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the return memo was issued on 03.01.2009, since the statutory notice was issued only on 13.02.2009, which is beyond 30 days from the date of return of the cheque. So the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3.On perusal of the record shows that the revision petitioner preferred a private complaint dated 17.03.2009 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.S.Sridevi Vs. the Principal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. This writ petition came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon ble Chief Justice vide order dated 27.07.2010.2. Heard both sides.3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Madhavaram, dated 29.06.1994 made under Section 9(5) of the of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act) as well as the notice under Section 11(5) dated 13.06.1997 in respect of the land in Survey No.12/3 of Kathirvedu Village, measuring 3700 sq.mts and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the respondents to treat the proceedings initiated under the Act as having been abated in terms of Section 4 of the T.N.Act 20 of 1999 so as to enable the petitioner to incorporate her name as the owner of the entire extent of the land in revenue records.4. The writ petition was admitted on 26.10.2005 along with two other writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Zaibunnisa Vs. the Commissioner Corporation of Chennai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 04.06.2010 passed by the third respondent and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the respondents to pay pension along with arrears with effect from 17.10.1993.2.Notice was directed to be taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Chennai. But they have not filed any counter affidavit till date.3.The case of the petitioner is that her husband Mr.G.Khader Ali was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Corporation of Chennai and got retired from service on 01.12.1986. After his retirement, he was getting pension from the Corporation. On 17.10.1993, when he went for offering prayers in the mosque, he did not come back to home. A police complaint was filed as well as a paper publication was effected. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.2412 of 2003 seeking for a declaration that her husband Mr.G.Khader Ali had met with a civil death. In that suit,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.M.Soudarssane Vs. Special Secretary (Art and Culture) Cum Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the first respondent Special Secretary (Arts and Culture) cum Director, Puducherry Institute of Linguistic and Culture in promoting the second respondent to the post of Director and reverting the petitioner and seeks to set aside the same.2.When the matter came up on 23.11.2010, this Court directed private notices to be served on the respondents and a status quo was directed to be maintained. Subsequently, the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) took notice and the interim order came to be extended. A counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent, dated 30.3.2011, to which the petitioner had filed a rejoinder dated 21.4.2011.3.Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for both respondents.4.The case of the petitioner was that he is currently working as a Director of the Puduch...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Rani @ Meenakshi and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. These four writ petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the notices issued by the Commissioner of Corporation, Vellore in terms of Sections 254 and 255 of the (Vellore) Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 as made applicable to Vellore Corporation.2.By the impugned notices, an attention of the petitioners was drawn to the fact that the petitioners were having layouts and after formation of layouts, they have not entrusted with the Corporation the Open Space Reservation for school and play ground. They were asked to entrust the space reserved for open space within a period of 7 days, failing which the Corporation had threatened action in terms of Sections 254 and 255 of the (Vellore) Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. They were also informed that after getting the consent from the residents, the Corporation will have no hesitation to take over those plots.3.In the first writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 1.12.2010 and an interim stay was gran...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.M.Kannan Vs. Secretary to Government, Tamil Development Culture Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order in G.O.Ms.No.499, Tamil Development Religious Endowment and Information Department, dated 20.12.2007, wherein and by which the third respondent was appointed as an Assistant Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary Project and also challenges the order in G.O.Ms.No.401, Tamil Development Religious Endowment and Information Department, dated 05.10.2010, wherein and by which adhoc rules were framed for the upgraded post of Assistant Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary Project and after setting aside both the orders seeking for a direction to appoint the petitioner in the post of the Assistant Director.2.When the writ petition came up on 01.12.2010, this Court had directed issuance of private notice. On such private notice, the first and second respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 08.04.2011 and the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 12.01.2011.3.Heard...
Tag this Judgment!A.Seenisankar Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the third respondent, i.e., District Employment Officer, Villupuram District, dated 12.11.2010 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to register the petitioner's name under the Land Losers' Priority category in the employment register with effect from 2.1.2008.2.When the matter came up on 25.11.2010, this Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to receive notice and to get instructions. Accordingly, on behalf of the third respondent (wrongly described as second respondent), a counter affidavit, dated 25.5.2009 was filed.3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was the son of one Arumugam residing at Mettu Street, Sennagunam, Thirukoilur Taluk. He had registered his name in the employment exchange on 17.6.2002 showing his qualification as SSLC passed. Subsequently when he passed his higher secondary and obtained Diploma in Teacher Education, those additional quali...
Tag this Judgment!V.Sankaran and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. This writ petition came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon ble Chief Justice vide order dated 27.07.2010.2. The three petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the proceedings dated 27.02.1998 passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Ceiling), Tambaram and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the third respondent Tahsildar, Tambaram, to grant necessary patta in respect of the petitioner s land comprised in S.No.382/5 to the extent of 0.38 acres in Tambaram Village in favour of the petitioners.3. The writ petition was admitted on 22.04.2003 and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 29.08.2003, the petitioners asserted before this Court that they are in possession of the property, though the impugned order has been passed as early as 27.02.1998. Hence, the interim stay already granted was made absolute on 29.08.2003.4. On notice from this Court, the ...
Tag this Judgment!J.Thirukumaran Vs. the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge a demand notice, dated 1.6.2010 passed by the third respondent Sub Registrar, Pammal in demanding a sum of Rs.1,38,108/- towards stamp charges and differential registration charges of Rs.11,510/- in terms of Section 47B of the Stamp Act.2.When the writ petition came up on 29.10.2010, notice was directed to be taken by the learned Government Advocate. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 24.02.2011.3.The contention of the petitioner was that he had purchased a vacant site to an extent of 2592 sq.ft. comprised in Grama Natham Survey No.191/2 and new Survey No.412/3 of Kolapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk for a sale consideration of Rs.53,800/- from one K.Ramachandran and K.R.Srikanth. The document for the sale of the property, dated 21.11.2001 was presented to the third respondent for registration. The third respondent kept it pending with him and later referred i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »