Chennai Court July 2012 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Wabco Tvs (India) Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Heard both sides. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents cleared inputs and capital goods to a unit in SEZ without reversal of input credit taken by them. The lower appellate authority relying on the decision of the Sujana Metal Products Ltd. reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 held that the assessee for the clearance of the input or capital goods to an SEZ are to be treated as export of dutiable goods. Therefore, they are not liable to reverse the CENVAT credit. Against the said holding, the Revenue is in appeal before me. The learned SDR relies on the decision of Essar Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) ELT 3 (Guj.) and Tirupati Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (272) ELT 209 (A.P). He further submitted that as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, the respondents are required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed by them on the clearances. Therefore, when the provision of Rule 3(5) is clear they are required to reverse the same. 3. I have taken note of the submis...
M/S. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
The short issue involved in this appeal is whether first appellate authority is correct in denying of input credit of duty paid on Cement used in Civil works for support of capital goods by relying on the decision of the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB), or not, where the allegations were against the appellants that they are not eligible for the credit on the construction of civil works by Coromandal Engineering Co. Ltd., who is a service provider to the appellants. 2. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, the first appellate authority has not given any finding on the issue alleged in the show cause notice and only relied on the decision of the Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). 3. In view of the above observation, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the first appellate authority to give finding on the issue alleged in the show cause notice ...
M/S. Yaley Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
(The appeal having come before us for final hearing on 27.06.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant joined a chit with the opposite party during with 2007 and after paying 7 installments for the 30 months chit amount totaling Rs.7,50,000/- he bidd the chit at the 7th installment for Rs.5,25,000/- for which since the opposite party insisted his wifes signature as surety for disbursing the amount which was not agreeable by the complainant as his wife being the Government Employee he had opted for closing the chit amount while demanding the chit amount paid already for 7 installments of Rs.1,43,720/- for the same only a sum of Rs.1,06,250/-aloan was repaid by the opposite party and thereby after issuing legal notice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint cl...
Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. Ceebros Rangam Vs. V. Thangavelswamy, Retd. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,473/- towards refund of amount paid, alongwith interest, and compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. 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.19.2.2010 in CC. No.251/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.6.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PREIDENT 1. The 1st Opposite party/ M/s. Cox and Kings, preferred this appeal, alongwith two other agents, aggrieved by the order impugned, passed by the District Forum, wherein the complaint preferred by Professor Thangavelsamy, was allowed, and a compensati...
Mr.S.Seenivasagam. Vs. Mr.R.R.Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 27.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.9114 of 2008 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENTB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.9114 of 2008 the appellant/ the third respondent Cooperative Society has come forward with this appeal.2. The writ petitioner/respondent is the wife of one R.Pandian, who was working as salesman in the appellant cooperative society governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. According to the appellant during the course of inspection they found out deficiency of stock to the tune of Rs.79,932.65 for which, the deceased R.Pandian, husband of the writ petitioner/respondent was responsible. The main contention of the appellant is that in the liability register, the deceased R.Pandian himself has acknowledged the said liability and agreed to pay the said amount with 16% interest. Thereafter, he has also sought further time to make payment but...
Pachaiyammal Educational Trust. Vs. the Appellate Committee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the orders of the 2nd respondent in F.No. 732-52-001 (NDEG).ET/97 dated 12.4.2012 addressed to the Principal of the petitioner Institution as well as the order in F.No.732-52-001(NDEG).ET/97 dated 12.4.2012 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Tamilnadu and the order of the 4th respondent in Memo No.13842/ECA1/2012 dated 1.5.2012 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to forthwith consider the appeal dated 18.4.2012 submitted by the petitioner preferred against the orders of the 2nd respondent in F.No.732-52-001(NDEG).ET/97 dated 12.4.2012 addressed to the Principal of the petitioner Institution as well as the order in F.No.732-52-001(NDEG).ET/97 dated 12.04.2012 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.O R D E R1. This writ petition came to be posted b...
K.M.Balasubramaniam. Vs. Savithiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to order dated 01.04.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2011 in C.A.No.252 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court / Fast Track Court-I, Erode and set-aside the same.ORDER1. The history of the case is as follows:-The respondent herein had filed a case in C.C.No.29 of 2003, on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai against 8 accused for the alleged offence under Section 494 r/w 109 I.P.C. All the accused were convicted after trial. Against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.29 of 2003, dated 22.11.2007, the revision petitioner herein / A1 had filed a criminal appeal in C.A.No.252 of 2007, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Erode. While the appeal was pending, the revision petitioner herein had filed Crl.R.C.No.531 of 2008, before this Court to transfer the above appeal to some other Court. Subsequently, the abov...
P.Manibalan MalA. Vs. the State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.377 of 2000 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners concerned.ORDER1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 12 in Crime No.377 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent police. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. Altogether there are 18 accused including the petitioners. The said case has been registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 332, 336, 307, 397 & 436 I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. Seeking to quash the said F.I.R, the petitioners have come up with this petition.2. This petition was filed on 18.10.2011 and the same was admitted by this Court on 29.10.2011. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several hearings for filing counter by the respondents. Finally, counter was filed before this Court by the first r...
Dr.V.Kamalam. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to pay an adequate compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner for the deliberate delay due to vindictive motives in denying the 2nd provisional certificate, degree certificate and for issuing an incomplete transfer certificate and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the illegal acts of respondents 4 and 5.ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to pay adequate compensation of Rs.30 lakhs for the deliberate delay due to vindictive motive in denying the second provisional certificate and degree certificate and also for issuing an incomplete transfer certificate and also seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take an action against the illegal acts done by respondents 4 and 5.2. When the writ petition came up on 26.04.2012, this court directed the learned A...
P. Umalakshmi. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Declaration that the action of the respondent Bank in depriving the petitioner pension due to the Late Ponnan, who died on harness while in service on 9.4.1998 and consequently direct the first and second respondents to sanction pension to the petitioner on and from 10.4.1998 together with interest at 12% per annum and ex-gratia compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment that is being extended by the bank to the staff, if the bank is not willing to provide compassionate appointment either to the petitioner or to her children.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration that the action of the respondent bank in depriving the first petitioner's pension due to Late Ponnan, who died in harness on 9.4.1998 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction pension to the petitioner on and from 10.4.1998 together with interest at 12% pe...