Chennai Court August 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.
Balaiah Alias Balu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1.This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.354 of 2004, dated 05.02.2008 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for EC Act Cases, Pudukkottai, by allowing this appeal. 2. On 22.04.2004, at about 16.00 hours, along Trichy-Uraiyur Road near Uyyankondan Bridge, heroin weighing 1250 grams was seized from the appellant and one Kutty belonging to Bombay and they were charged under Sections 8(c) r/w. Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On consideration of the evidence of the record, the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases Court), Pudukkottai, convicted the appellant under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 21(c) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Hence, the appellant is before this Cour...
Tvl.Silver Spring Spinner (India) Vs. State of Tamilnadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 29.06.2007, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer-I. 2.The only ground of challenge is that the impugned order of re-assessment is barred by limitation. 3.In support of this contention, the petitioner submitted that the assessment for the year 1999-2000 was finalized on 12th November 2004. It was only on 22th April 2005, the petitioner was issued a notice under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959, for re-assessment. 4.Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, reads as under:- Section 16, Assessment of escaped turnover:-(1)(a) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) at any time within a period of five years from the [date of order of the final assessment by the assessin...
M/S.Gojay Agro Food Industries Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the case on the file of the respondent in proceedings dated 21.03.2011 in TNGST No.5781589/2004-2005 and in TNGST No.5781589/2005-2006 and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. By Consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The orders under challenge have been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sathur, on remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T). As against these orders, an appeal can be filed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T) challenging the merits of the orders. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petitions challenging the orders contending that the Assessing Authority namely the Commercial Tax Officer failed to take into consideration the scope of the order of the Appellate Authority remanding the matter for reconsideration....
K.M.Benedict Crizal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Fixed Deposit of Rs.10 lakhs compulsorily obtained from the petitioner and deposited with the third respondent Corporation vide Deposit Receipt No.RAA 093612, dated 23.03.2005 at the time of giving 'No objection Certificate' for establishing the petitioner's college of Education. 2. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as a pre- condition to grant 'No Objection Certificate' for setting up of Teachers Education College. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a minority institution. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madras English Baptist Church, Madras .vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1991(1) L.W 729 was pleased to lay down that the minority institution cannot be directed to create an endowment fund as envisaged under Government Orders. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under : 9. Therefor...
Elgitread (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The demand of customs duty of Rs.1,46,616/- on the ground that, since the assessees exported goods under bond without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.263/79-CE dt. 22.9.79, they were covered by Sl.No.1 (d) of the Table to Notification No.94/96-Cus covering re-import of goods exported inter alia under bond, is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The assessees had exported two consignments of tyre re-treading machinery and accessories manufactured by them for the purpose of exhibition in international trade fair held in USA and Italy in Feb-01 and April-01 and for exhibition in Singapore in Aug-01, under bond without payment of duty under Notification No.263/79 as amended. At the time of re-import, after exhibition, the goods were cleared without payment of duty by claiming exemption to Notification 94/96-Cus. dt. 16.12.96 as amended. Since such goods were exported under bond without payment of duty, they are covere...
Sri Krishna Electricals, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. C. Natarajan and A ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the first opposite party to test run the rectified motor, to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation towards the loss of 15C Tons of sugarcane yield, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the mental agony, pain and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the first OP, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by first OP, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.07.2009 in C.C.26/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels, and perused the documents, Written Argument of R2, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/first respondent had purchased a 5 HP Electric Motor from the first opposite party,...
Marikannan Vs. the Manager M/S. Bpl Engineering Ltd., Service Division ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, Rs.16000/- towards cost of the TV with 24% interest, and cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.07.2008 in OP.No.196/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 28.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal: The complainant had purchased a BPL colour TV, 21 on 31.5.1996, from 3rd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, for a sum of Rs.16000/-, which failed to perform proper...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by Its Zonal Manager Southern ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction against the opposite parties The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.07.07.2010 in OP.No.273/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to the case: The complainants wife Vallikannu, insured her life on 28.6.99, for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-, agreeing to pay yearly premium, and accordingly paid upto 2000. Thereafter, because of the non-payment, policy lapsed, revived. 3. The assured, who was working as Secondary grade teacher, died on 3.4.2001, at ...
G.Ramasubbu Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. This petition has been filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil to record the statement of the petitioner as well as the others those who were all witnessed the burning incident took place on 18.04.2011. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the son of the petitioner viz., R.Krishnamoorthy has completed his Engineering course and he has been working in Rajasthan and he came to his native place for holidays. During that time, he committed suicide raising his voice as to the Tamil people including the children in Srilanga, who were all murdered cruelly by the Srilanga President, Raja Bakshe and since he was helpless to them, he should be killed and let him to be died. 3.He would further submit that the respondent has registered a case in crime No.80 of 2011 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., concealing the real fact of the incident. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present application directing the learned Judicial Ma...
Dr.S.K.Saravanan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The writ petition challenges the order of the second respondent, dated 6.10.2009 addressed to all the Deputy Directors of Health Services and the order of the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 07.10.2009 addressed to the third respondent in and by which the first and second respondents have stated that for the purpose of qualifying the Assistant Surgeons appointed on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) under a special drive for appointment in the medical services, he should have been appointed upto 23.02.2009 and continue to be in service as on 07.08.2009. 2.It is admitted case that the petitioner was appointed on 30.06.2009 by the proceedings of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai namely, the second respondent in the sanctioned post of Assistant Surgeons (Specialties) in Government Primary Health Centre, Keeranur, Trichy. 3.A reference to the appointment order shows that the appointment is pursuant to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »