Chennai Court April 2016 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.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Brakes India Limited and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
Common Judgment V. Ramasubramanian, J 1. The Revenue has come up with the above appeals, raising the substantial questions of law which reads as under; C.M.A.No.3148 of 2007: Inasmuch as the inputs in question were procured solely for the purpose of export and such inputs were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods of the assessee/respondent, whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the credit of duty with reference to Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules? C.M.A.No.2431 of 2008: 1. Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the impugned goods became fully manufactured goods in the premises of the appellants particularly when the appellant had admittedly done only testing and packing of the goods in their premises, which do not amount to manufacture in terms of Sec.2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as no new product has emerged? 2. In view of the above, whether the CESTAT is right in allowing the CENVAT credit on automotive parts which had not undergone...
P. Ashok Kumar Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, Dindig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to register the FIR based on the complaint dated 08.03.2016 made by the Petitioner and investigate the same in accordance with law within the time prescribed by this Honourable Court and pass any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to register the FIR based on the complaint dated 08.03.2016 made by the Petitioner and investigate the same in accordance with law within the time prescribed by this Honourable Court and pass any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 08.03.2016 has been sent by post to the 1st respondent. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person be...
A. Muthu Lakshmi Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR under the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR under the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint dated 08.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 08.03.2016. A copy of the Closure Report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Jeeva Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (LandO), Madurai and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 06.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 06.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 06.02.2016, the dispute essentially appears to be civil in nature in as much as the opposite party had borrowed Rs.10 lakhks and executed a mortgage deed, which was registered as Doc.No.611 of 2013. Now, it is alleged by the petitioner that the mortgage property is ancestral property and there are encumbrances. 4. In a case of this nature, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appro...
Gulumayee Ammal and Others Vs. Sarojini Ammal (died) and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.281 of 2014 in E.P.Mo.209 of 2012 in RCOP.No.16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Rent Controller / District Munsif, Madurai, dated 19.12.2014.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.281 of 2014 in E.P.Mo.209 of 2012 in RCOP.No.16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Rent Controller / District Munsif, Madurai, dated 19.12.2014. 2. The facts of the case:- (i) Petition property originally belonged to one Pandi Naidu. He filed RCOP.No.16 of 2003 for eviction of one Sarojini Ammal, mother of respondent on the ground of wilful default and another RCOP.No.15 of 2013 for fixation of fair rent. While RCOPs were pending, the said Pandi Naidu died. The petitioners herein were impleaded as petitioners in the said RCOPs as legal representatives of said Pandi Naidu. After contest, both RCOPs were allowed. Ag...
Gunavel Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register a case against the accused on the representation dated 15.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case against the accused on the representation dated 15.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 15.03.2016, the dispute essentially appears to be a property dispute between the petitioner and his relatives. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Accordingly, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed....
The District Revenue Officer, Salem District and Another Vs. Sasikumar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 275 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case against the judgment passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.113 of 2009 dated 22.12.2014.) 1. Though Mr.V.Balakrishnan, Learned counsel had filed memo of appearance in this matter for the Respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A2, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondents today. 2. Heard Mr.V.Arul, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Petitioners/Complainants. 3. It comes to be known that the Petitioners/Respondents/Complainants have preferred the present M.P.No.1 of 2015 praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 275 days in preferring the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.113 of 2009 dated 22.12.2014. 4. At this juncture, this Court has perused the contents of the affidavit in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in SR.No.55987 of ...
Shanthi and Others Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.842 of 2014 pending with the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.842 of 2014 pending with the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.842 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Exorbitant Charges of Interest Act on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioners/accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai City. 4. Learned counse...
Selvam Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Tiruppur North Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012, dated 29.11.2012, by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. This criminal appeal is against the Judgment, dated 29.11.2012 made in S.C.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. 2. The sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant / accused has been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has come forward with this appeal. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows : (a) The deceased-Sankar Ganesh and the accused-Selvam were working in Baby Fashion Company in Tiruppur, owned by one Murugan, the brother of the accused...
Subathra Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in respect of C.C.No. 364 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Srivaikundam and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for records in respect of C.C.No.364 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. On the direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MP)1425 of 2015, the respondent police registered a case on the complaint lodged by Anbu Jothika (2nd respondent) in Crime No.1 of 2015 on 07.02.2015 for offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act against Subathra and five others. 3. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that Anbu Jothika got married to Vijayakumar on 19.01.2011 and after marriage, she was subjected to untold cruelty by Vijayakumar and his family members. In the FIR, Anbu Jothika...