Chennai Court April 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.
K.Vijayal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:10. .04.2014 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. No.29093 of 2011 K.Vijayal ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Fort St., George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5. ... Respondents Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent made in G.O.(D).No.40, dated 18.02.2011, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to extend all benefits both service and monetary including the promotion as District Revenue Officer from the date on which her junior was promoted. For petitioner .. Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents .. Mr.K.Ravichandran AGP for RR1&2 ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash th...
Seetharaman Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:10. 04 2014 Coram The Hon'ble TMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Second Appeal No.899 of 2006 Seetharaman .. Appellant vs. Mani .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 in A.S. No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 made in O.S. No.98 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkali. For Appellants : Mr. S. Udhayakumar For Respondent : Mr. T. Sathiyamoorthy for M/s G.M. Mani & Associates JUDGMENT The plaintiff who had filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property after removing the encroachment, has filed this Second Appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S. No.10 of 2004 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 11.1...
Cce, Chennai Iv Vs. M/S. India Gypsum Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2006 to June 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Bench...
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Pavai Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period January 2005 to June 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Ben...
Cce, Chennai Ii Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2005 to July 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Bench...
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts India Ve ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
R. Regupathi, President (Open Court). 1. Opposite parties, before the District Forum, are the appellant herein. 2. The complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, in not delivering the cover containing the original certificates alongwith demand draft for Rs.6500/-, to be delivered to Annamalai University, filed a complaint before the District Forum. 3. The District Forum on perusal of the entire records, and on evaluating the materials came to the just conclusion that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of original certificates alongwith demand draft, alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 4. Before this commission, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the non-delivery is neither willful nor wanton,. Further submitted that the awarding of compensation of Rs.15000/-, for the delay in settling the claim amount, is on the higher side. 5. On perusal of the records, and on hearing of the rival ...
M/S. Sjlt Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn classifiable under Chapter 52 of the CETA, 1985. During the period from 19.10.2005 to 24.5.2006, the appellants cleared the old and used capital goods to their other units on payment of duty on the transaction value. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant is liable to reverse the entire credit originally taken on the impugned capital goods at the time of removal as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-MAD-LB, following the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. 2011-TIOL-05-HC-MAD, held that reversal of CENVAT credit of 2.5% for each quarter of an year from the date of taking of CENVAT credit. 4. In my considered view the matter should be examined in the light of the Larger Bench of the Tr...
M/S. Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of IC Engines and parts. They removed the used capital goods without payment of duty. Subsequently, they reversed the entire amount of credit originally taken on the said capital goods under protest. The appellants filed a refund claim of the duty which has been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants removed the capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the expression removed as such used in the said Rule would apply and the appellant is required to reverse the entire credit originally taken at the time of receiving the capital goods. 3. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-MAD-LB, following the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in the case of C...
S.Rajkamal Vs. 1. the General Manager,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE:07. 04.2014. CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD)No.967 of 2012 S.Rajkamal : Petitioner vs.1. The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division IV) Limited, Bye Pass Road, Collectorate Post, Dindigul-4. Dindigul District.2. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bye-pass Road, Madurai-16. : Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings ghh;it j/eh/m/nghf: jpz;L/ Ml;rp M2-2277- ehs; :02. 01.2012 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as conductor on compassionate ground. !For petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan ^For R1 : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian For R2 : Mr.C.M.Ganesan :ORDER The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :07. 04.2014 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Appeal) No.1031 of 2007 --- Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-III, . ... Appellant -vs- M/s.Rane Brake Linings Ltd., ".Maithiri". No.32, Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. ... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.01.2007, in I.T.A.No.1953/Mds/2002. For petitioner : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan For Respondent : Mr.C.V.Rajan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.1953/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1994-95 and the appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- Whether on the fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »