Chennai Court January 2014 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.
P.Francis Co Charls @ Charls Vs. 1.Kumaresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06. 01/2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.(MD)No.472 of 2006 and Cross Objection (MD)No.29 of 2013 C.M.A.(MD)No.472 of 2006 P.Francis Co Charls @ Charls ... Appellant Vs. 1.Kumaresan 2.C.Thankayan 3.New India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, near Head Post Office, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 2002, dated 05.092005, on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil. !For Appellant ... Mr.Sreekumaran Nair ^For Respondents ... Notice dispensed with for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Ramanathan for R3 - - - Cross Objection (MD)No.29 of 2013 The New India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Near Head Post Office, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Cross Objector Vs. 1.P...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Brakes India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :06. 01.2014 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1198 to 1201 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai ... Appellant in all the appeals -vs- M/s.Brakes India Limited Padi, Chennai 600 050. ...Respondent in all the appeals Prayer: Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ".A". Bench dated 10.11.2006 in ITA.Nos.916/Mds/2002, 968/Mds/2001, 1947/Mds/2002 and 1948/Mds/2002 for the assessment years 1998-99, 1998-99, 1998-99 and 1991-92 respectively. For appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar in all the appeals For respondent : Mr.C.V.Rajan for in all the appeals M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar COMMON JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) These Tax Case (Appeals) by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Incom...
Muthusamy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer of Athur Taluk Revenue Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2014 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.34288 of 2012 Muthusamy .Petitioner versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O).Athur Taluk Revenue Division, Salem District. 2.Muthayi 3.Mani .Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the FiRs.Respondent to conduct enquiry based on the enquiry notice dated 10.08.2012 and pass suitable order on merits based on the records within the time framed fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Navaneetham Additional Government Pleader ------- ORDER The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Mandamus, praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the FiRs.Respondent to conduct the enquiry based on the enquiry notice dated 10.08.2012 and to pass suitable order on merits based on the records within a time frame to be determin...
M.Praveen Kumar Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06. 01.2014 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.10581 of 2012 M.Praveen Kumar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Cirle/North/Chennai, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Letter No.079906/326/G10/G101/2009 dated 24.09.2009 and consequential impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Letter No.10629/584/G10/G101/2011 dated 27.01.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for suitable appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the representation p...
Arumugham Vs. Muthukumaraswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06. 01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (NPD) No.3570 of 2013 Arumugham ...Petitioner vs. Muthukumaraswami ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal orders of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu dated 07.11.2012 in E.P.No.105 of 2011 in O.S.No.36 of 2011. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondent : K.P.Gopalakrishnan for R1 ORDER The Judgment debtor against whom the Executing Court has passed an order directing his arrest for detention in civil prison is the petitioner in the present revision filed against the said order of the executing Court. The respondent herein is the decree holder.2. An ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner on 30.06.2011 in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. In the decree, the revision petitione...
M/S. Iyappan Engineering Ind. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machinery components falling under Chapter 84, 87 and 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have removed the used duty paid machinery to the sister concern upon payment of duty under transaction value. Subsequently, the audit party examined this issue and after thorough investigation it was found that the appellant is liable to pay duty on depreciated value. Accordingly, they have paid the duty on the depreciated value as per the observation of the audit. By the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority demanded interest under Section11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,65,044/- equal amount of duty under Rule 57U of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that they h...
M/S. Shivas Industrial Caterers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. The appellant was engaged in providing outdoor catering service in and around Chennai, during the period April, 2006 to September, 2007. The applicant was not discharging the service tax liability promptly but they were paying service tax along with interest as applicable with delays ranging from 1 day to 293 days in different months. The books of accounts of the appellant were audited on 12.09.07 and 5.10.07. The department pointed out that the appellant was not paying tax promptly and was also not paying interest on such delayed payment of service tax. The appellants paid the outstanding amounts and discharged the entire liability of Rs. 1,57,18,055/- of service tax for the period 01.04.06 to 30.09.07 and also paid interest of Rs. 8,41,810/- before issue of show cause notice in the matter. Later, show cause notice was issued on 05.02.2008 for demanding the service tax not paid in time and for appropriating the service tax already paid by them towards such liability along with inte...
Amaravathy Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Co ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. The Appellants had imported 15 nos. of second hand Shuttleless Rapier Weaving Looms of type CERDANS PROPERLLER, Spanish Make. The year of manufacture of all machines was declared as 1994 in the Bill of Entry dt. 9.9.2003 and the machineries were imported through ICD Singanallur, Coimbatore. The above machines were supplied by M/s MAQUISATOR, Barcelona, Spain for a total value of Rs. 57,56,655/- for the 15 looms. The goods were cleared on payment of duty and the machineries were installed in the factory premises of the appellant. Later, the Revenue department received information to the effect that the year of make of the machineries was much earlier and if the correct year of make was considered, the goods were restricted for import during the relevant time and the appellant had deliberately mis-declared the year of make of the machineries to avoid restrictions under import policy for importing old machines. 2. Revenue conducted detailed examination of the machine in the presence of...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-i Vs. M/S. Asia Gas Agencies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. Common issue involved in these appeals and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. This issue relates to imposition of mandatory penalty 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Compressed Industrial Oxygen classifiable under Heading 2804.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availed benefit of SSI exemption, which was denied on the ground that the respondents used the brand name INOX of other person. Adjudicating authority modified demand of duty and confirmed a portion of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC. The respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against the imposition of mandatory penalty. Revenue also filed appeal against the Adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as for confirmation of entire amount of demand of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the responde...
S.Muralidharan Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :03. 01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.22849 of 2007 S.Muralidharan .. Petitioner -vs- 1. Government of India rep.by Secretary Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi 2. Government of India rep.by Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Office 26, Shastri Bhavan Haddows Road Chennai 600 006 3. The Collector of Chennai Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001 4. Government of India rep.by the Under Secretary I.C.Section Ministry of Home Affairs Lok Nayak Bhavan Khan Market New Delhi (R4 impleaded as per Court order dated 13.2.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.22849 of 2007) 5. The Chief Immigration Officer No.26, Shastri Bhavan Annex Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 (R5 impleaded as per order of Court dated 3.1.2014 in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.22849 of 2007) .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records conne...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »