Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. The Professional Courier ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: C.M.A.No.2136 of 2010, had been filed against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, in final order No.1468 of 2007 dated 7.12.2007.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Department had submitted that they may be permitted by this court to withdraw the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in view of the instructions issued, in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 17.12.2015, as the monetary limit relating to the matter is less than Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsels had further submitted that liberty may be granted to the Appellant/Department to revive the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in the relevant circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 3. In view...
Tag this Judgment!J. Swaminathan Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking the relief to call for the records culminated in the order dated 23-12-2015 in Crl.M.P.No.3151 of 2015 in C.C.No.458 of 2013 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (now at Moore Market Complex, Allikulam) and set aside the same and pass orders.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed against the order dated dated 23-12-2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3151 of 2015 in C.C.No.458 of 2013 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.3151 of 2015 in C.C.No.458 of 2013 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to permit him to file the documents mentioned therein as additional evidence, wherein the present petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that the documents mentioned therein are not available at the time of fili...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Ashok Magnetics Ltd., Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras `D' Bench, Chennai, dated 4.9.2014 passed in I.T.A.No.1572/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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Technova Engineering Industries a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: C.M.A.No.2667 of 2011, had been filed against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, in final order No.206 of 2011 dated 31.1.2011.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Department had submitted that they may be permitted by this court to withdraw the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in view of the instructions issued, in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 17.12.2015, as the monetary limit relating to the matter is less than Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsels had further submitted that liberty may be granted to the Appellant/Department to revive the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in the relevant circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 3. In view ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramesh Vs. Union of India, Rep. by The General Manager, Heavy Alloy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(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 and quash the orders passed by the fourth respondent in O.A.No.1542 of 2012, dated 10.09.2014 and in R.A.No.64 of 2014, dated 02.01.2015 and consequently to direct the first respondent to elevate the petitioner to the post of Highly Skilled Grade I in PB-1 (5200-20200) + GP 2800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits.) S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the fourth respondent in O.A.No.1542 of 2012, dated 10.09.2014 and also in R.A.No.64 of 2014, dated 02.01.2015 and consequently to direct the first respondent to elevate the petitioner to the post of Highly Skilled Grade I in PB-1 (5200-...
Tag this Judgment!Arul Vs. State rep.by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the lower Court and set aside the order, dated 14.10.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.108 of 2011.) 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the convictions and sentences, dated 14.10.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.108 of 2011, by the District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has married the deceased Tamilmani @ Thangam during September 2008. After marriage, both of them have lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given 23 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The accused has demanded two more sovereigns of gold jewels. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have promised to give the same after three months from the date of marriage. After lapse of three months from the date of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kottar Chettu Nainar Desika Vinayagar Devaswom Trust rep. by its Trust ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decretal order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1398 of 2005 by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decretal order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1392 of 2005 by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.) Common Order: C.R.P(MD)No.525 of 2007 is filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.142 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1398 of 2005 dated 29.01.2007 on the file of District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, wherein and whereby, the delay of 539 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The said appeal was filed with such delay against the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.1208 of 1993 dated 15.12.2003 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The said suit was filed seeking for the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai Vs. V.S.A. Jamal Mohamed and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 passed in A.S.No.513 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.4415 of 1998 on the file of the learned XVIII Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.4415 of 1998 on the file of the learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and the 6th respondent is the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for ejectment after terminating the lease. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 09.12.2003 decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.513 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By decree and judgment dated 10.09.2007, the First App...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jeevarathinam Vs. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram made in A.S.No.18 of 2012 dated 26.11.2013 and the order in I.A.No.136 of 2013 in A.S.No.18 of 2012 dated 26.11.2013 reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam made in O.S.No.92 of 2010 dated 21.12.2011.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is the appellant herein. The respondent is the defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 15.06.2008. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 21.12.2011 declined to grant the decree for specific performance and instead, directed the defendant to repay the advance money of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff within a period of three months. As against the same, th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Samiathal Vs. Sulochana and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 made in A.S.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 made in O.S.No.249 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.249 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perundurai is the appellant herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for partition and for 1/3rd share and for other reliefs. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 25.08.2014 decreed the suit in part thereby passing a preliminary decree for 1/12th share. As against the same, the defendants 3 and 4 have filed an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai. By decree and judgment dated 24.03.2015, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »