Chennai Court April 2012 Judgments
M/S. Arrow Net Computers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. Heard both sides. 2. Considering the reasons given in the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned as a special case and the MA (COD) is allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are intending to re-export the impugned goods and the only challenge in this appeal is to the quantum of fine and penalty imposed. As such, the issue to be decided lies within a short compass and hence waiving the requirement of predeposit, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal today itself. 4. The value of the impugned goods is Rs.4,15,218/-. The original authority had imposed a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been reduced to Rs.50,000/- by the lower appellate authority. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same has been reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the lower appellate authority. The reduction has been done by the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. Heard both sides. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted as under:- (1) M/s. Maharaja Cargo, is licensed CHA, having CHA licence No.R277/CHA, which is valid upto 21/6/2015. The Commissioner has, vide his order dated 17/10/2011, suspended the CHA licence of M/s. Maharaja Cargo under Regulation 20 (2) of the CHALR, 2004. The reason for suspension as stated in the order is that M/s, Lubecon Petroproducts, whose bills of entry were filed by M/s. Maharaja Cargo were found to be misdeclared. Against the declared goods fuel oil and rubber processing oil, the imported goods on chemical analysis were alleged to be base oil and kerosene oil admixed with low boiling petroleum hydrocarbon solvent. A case has been registered by the DRI who conducted investigation in the matter. It is stated in the impugned order that M/s. Maharaja Cargo failed to obtain statutory authorization from the actual importers; did not check the antecedents of the actual imp...
Tag this Judgment!M. Selvaraj Vs. the Assistant General Manager.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction a sum of Rs.3,35,190/- to the petitioner's daughter towards educational loan as per the loan application dated 23.11.2010.ORDER1. The daughter of the petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examinations during March 2010. She has secured 1017 marks out of 1200. Because of high marks, she secured admission in Anna University of Technology, Trichirappalli and she joined B.E., in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Thirukkuvalai Campus, Thirukkuvalai. On 23.11.2010, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent, seeking educational loan for her daughter to the tune of Rs.3,35,190/- for the four year course. Since no order was passed, sanctioning the loan, he filed the present writ petition to direct the respondents to sanction the amount of Rs.3,35,190/- to her daughter towards educational loan as per the loan application d...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.V.Pushparani Vs. the District Employment Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 8.11.2011 and send her name in the subsequent employment opportunities.O R D E R 1. This Writ Petition is a classic example of misuse of the process of this Court. 2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 8.11.2011. 3. Writ of Mandamus can only be issued to enforce a legal right and the enforce of a legal duty, which the respondent may have failed to perform, in spite of writ of demand. 4. A person seeking Writ of Mandamus has to have legal right, which he wants to enforce, and also failure of respondent to perform their statutory obligations in spite of writ of demand. The petitioner cannot seek mere disposal of the representation filed with the respondent, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Arun Excello Foundations Private Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in Pan NO.AABCA8168K dated 25.3.2011 and consequently quash the proceedings in AABCA8168K/AX-6091/168, dated 28.9.2011.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 25.3.2011, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the consequential proceedings, dated 28.9.2011, issued by the respondent, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, against the re-opening of the assessment, in respect of the assessment year 2004-2005, under Section 147 of the Act.3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a domestic priv...
Tag this Judgment!New Bharath Saw Mill. Vs. the District Forest Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated nil and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents in any way insisting for a fresh licence for running the sawmill in S.No.1427, Part in New Sub Division, Plot No.Y-2, G.N.T. Road, Nagappa Industrial Estate, Puzhal, Chennai.66 for providing Electricity in Service Connection in 051-002-1359 and other amenities for running the petitioner's saw mill until the disposal of the petitioner's application dated 2.1.2012 for "transfer of site" for the License is made under the provisions of Tamilnadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated nil and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents in any way insisting for a fresh licence for running the sawmill in...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Processing IndiA. Vs. Tangedco and Superintending Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in impugned order in Lr.No.SE/EEDC/ED/DFC/AO/Rev/HT/A2/HT SC No.15/D.No.1068/2012 dated 23.4.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in impugned order in Lr.No.SE/EEDC/ED/DFC/AO/Rev/HT/A2/HT SC No.15/D.No.1068/2012 dated 23.4.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.2. Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final order.3. The impugned demand is made on the basis that in respect of HT SC No.15 during the month of April, 2010 to July 2010, there was an excess consumption of power exceeding the energy and demand quota for which certain amount has to be levied and the authorities failed to levy the same and theref...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini. Vs. the Assistant Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Both Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to give electricity service connection to the petitioners' house situate in SF No.40/1 bearing Door No.5/26, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Egattur Village, Chengalpet Taluk.COMMON ORDER1. Both Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to give electricity service connection to the petitioners' house situate in SF No.40/1 bearing Door No.5/26, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Egattur Village, Chengalpet Taluk.2. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same. By consent, both writ petitions are taken up together for final order.3. Two petitioners seek electricity service connection for residential house. They gave separate representation to the respondent. No application in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribu...
Tag this Judgment!V.Preetha Shree and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 to 3 respondents to transfer the petitioners from the 4th respondent College to any other suitable College at Dharmapuri/Krishnagiri affiliated to the 2nd respondent in the Academic Year 2012-2013 in 1st year B.Sc., Nursing Course without any further payments to the said course.O R D E R1. The 13 petitioners are the students of the Nursing College run by the fourth respondent educational trust. The College is conducting B.Sc., Nursing Degree Course with an annual intake of 50 students, started from the academic year 2011-2012. In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the petitioners from the fourth respondent College to any other suitable College at Dharmapuri/Krishnagiri affiliated to the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, in the Academic Year 2012-2013 in the 1st year B.Sc., N...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Shri.M.S.Badrinathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, passed in O.A.No.472 of 2008, dated 23.07.2009 and quash the same.ORDER1. The Petitioners/Respondents have projected the present Writ Petition as against the Order dated 23.07.2009 in O.A.No.472 of 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, while passing the Order in O.A.No.472 of 2008 dated 23.07.2009 (filed by the Respondent/Applicant), has among other things observed that the junior to the Respondent/Applicant has already been given promotion under the physically handicapped category and therefore, deem it appropriate to give a direction to the Respondents (Writ Petitioners) to consider the case of the Respondent/Applicant for promotion as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs under the physically handi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »