Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
Vikash J. Shah, Director, M/s. Shah Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Final Order Nos.40318 and 40319 of 2014, dated 09.04.2014, received on 13.06.2014.) Common Judgment S. Vimala, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed, one filed by the Director and another by the company, as against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) Chennai, in Final Order Nos.40318 and 40319 of 2014, dated 09.04.2014. Brief facts:- 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of mercerized cotton yarn during the period from 01.04.2003 to 01.11.2003. Except during this period, i.e., neither before nor thereafter, the mercerized cotton yarn remained exempted from the payment of duty. The appellants procured duty paid grey yarn, mercerized the same and cleared the product without payment of duty during the said period. 2.1. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Jerry Garman @ Geraldine @ Jayalakshmi Vs. A.S. Sethuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, seeking to set aside the order, dated 15.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2490 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.) S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, seeking to set aside the order, dated 15.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.623 of 2010 in O.P.No.2490 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The appellant herein had filed the petition in O.P.No.2940 of 2007 under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, seeking divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent herein at Chennai on 17.08.1992. Pending the said Original Petition, the appellant herein, who was the respondent in the O.P.No.2940 of 2007, filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.623 of 2010, under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the main petition in...
Tag this Judgment!Indhira and Another Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2012.) Prayer in WP(MD).2069 of 2012 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by call for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1252/98 dated 17.02.2011 and quash the same and may consequently direct the respondents to change the patta and other revenue records of Sy.No.23/4 measuring 0.08.0 hectares, Sy.No. 23/8A measuring 0.08.0 hectares, 23/5A measuring 0.19.5 hectares of Kuravakudi Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, in the name of the 1st petitioner and Sy.No.16/9A measuring 77 cents and Sy.No. 16/9C measuring 1.09 acres of Kuravakudi Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, in the name of the 2nd petitioner.) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. M/s. PPK Rathinam Fireworks Si ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `B' Bench, Chennai, dated 1.8.2014 in ITA No.1106/Mds/2014.) 1. The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue had submitted that they may be permitted by this Court to withdraw the present tax case appeal, in view of the Circular No.21 of 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 10.12.2015, as the tax effect relating to the matter is less than Rs.20,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsels had further submitted that liberty may be granted to the Appellant/Revenue to revive the tax case appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 8 of the circular. 3. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, the present tax case appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn. It is made clear that the q...
Tag this Judgment!Mathews Kuncheria Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal presented to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.7.2012, in ITA No.1897/MDS/2011.) 1. Today, when this Tax Case Appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in view of the endorsement made, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!G. Pandithurai Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ariyalur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.1,70,325/- to the petitioner, as per order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour / Competent Authority, Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, Trichy, dated 20.07.2012 in S.A.No.03 of 2012.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the second respondent Society in the year 1990 and he discharged his duties without any blemish whatsoever, but the second respondent herein passed the order on 07.02.2007 whereby suspending him from service without any valid reasons. The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent without following the procedure and without paying the entire subsistence allowance, the second respondent passed the termination order against him on 29.11.2011, against which, he preferred Statutory Revision before the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thangavelu and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ ofdeclaration, to declare that the Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of Survey No.87/2B3, Alapakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram Town to an extent of 2.27 acres stands lapsed since the Award No.1 of 2001, dated 12.10.2001 is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that he was working in Atomic Thermal Power Station, Kalpakkam. He has purchased the land comprised in Survey No.87/2B3 an extent of 2,520 sq.ft. bearing Plot No.30 in Sri Govindarajulu Nagar, situated in Alapakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District by way of sale deed dated 05.10.1988 bearing document No.718/1988 registered on the file of SRO, Chengalpattu from G.Balasubramanian S/o.M.E.Govindarajulu Chettiar. The said plot forms part of the whole layout approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning at Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Reddy Vs. Johana Prakasam Martin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.11.2013 in I.A.No.3423 of 2012 in O.P.No.2058 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.) 1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition and he has given a letter to the Registry and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the letter given by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!R.2650, Keezhakudiyiruppu Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 20.07.2012 made in P.Oo.No.03/2012, on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that the second respondent was working as Clerk from 28.04.1990. In the year 1999, he committed irregularities causing monetary loss to the petitioner Society. Hence, he was issued with charge memo framing as many as four charges and he offered to give explanation for the charges framed as against him. Thereafter Domestic Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by giving ample opportunities to the second respondent to put forth his case. After considering the evidence available on record as well as the explanation of the second respondent, the Enquiry Officer found that most of the charges were proved. Then again notice was issued to the second respondent to give explanation o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Steola Mascarenhas Vs. The Superintendent of Police, District Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.12.2015 and further direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.12.2015 and further direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she has preferred a complaint to the respondent on 05.12.2015 against on Sahaya Arputharaj, Anantha Munirajan, Subramaniyam and others for preparing false documents by forging the petitioner's signature and illegally registering the marriage vide Certificate of Registration No.75 of 2013 dated 15.05.2013 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nagalnaickenpatty, Dindigul District, which act attracts the offences under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2.1. It is submitted by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »