Chennai Court September 2016 Judgments
M/s.Days Inn Deccan Plaza Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent order in original NO.114/2010, dated 29.10.2010, and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to pass a fresh order.) 1. Heard Mr.A.P.Ayyam Perumal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P.Srinivas learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and with the consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges an order-inoriginal passed by the second respondent, dated 29.10.2010, in and by which, the second respondent disallowed Cenvat Credit availed by the petitioner and demanded the same under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, apart from demanding i nterest and imposing penalty. 3. Against the order-in-original, dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Solvents and Chemicals Represented by its Managing Partner Vs. The Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in CST. No. 552864/2002-03 and CST. No. 552864/2003-04, both dated 16.09.2016 and quash the same.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and 2 Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondent, in both the writ petitions. By consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm, having its head office at Kochi, Kerela State and registered dealer in chemicals, both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter will be referred to as the CST Act ). In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the revised assessment orders under the CST Act, for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. 3. This is the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannadasan and Another Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.101 and 102 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012, dated 10.2.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram.) 1. These revisions have been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.101 and 102 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012, dated 10.2.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. The respondent herein, who is the brother of the first Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of 2012, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram against the first petitioner herein/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- based on the promissory note, dated 1.3.2012. 4. The Petitioners herein/defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of promissory note and loan transaction. Therefore in t...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Sambath Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records and quash FIR No.525 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent police.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash FIR No.525 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent police. 2.1 Sambath (A1), Anbalagan (A2), Thilakavathy (A3), Mallika (A4) and Elangovan (A5) owned the property in Plot No.3529, I Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, which they had mortgaged with Indian Bank and availed loan. Since they were not able to repay the loan to the bank, recovery proceedings were initiated against them in T.A. No.28 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. Apart from this, SARFAESI proceedings was also initiated against them for recovery of Rs.15,61,07,738-. 2.2 At that critical juncture, they approached Sabesan, the de facto complainant to bail them out and accordingly, Sabesan agreed to purchase the property for a total sale conside...
Tag this Judgment!Bollineni Hillside Residential Township Vs. BSCPL Infrastructure Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 (4) (A) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the construction agreement on 02.02.2012 between the petitioner association and the respondent.) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(4) (A) and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to the said Act ) by the petitioner, which is the Owners' Association against the builder, which is the respondent. 2. Bollineni Hillside Residential Township Owners' Association is stated to have been promoted by the respondent in about 45 acres of land at Nookampalayam, Perumbakkam Road, Sithalapakkam Post, Chennai-126. The members of the petitionerassociation purchased Villas/Apartments from the respondent, which were duly registered. The allegation of the petitioner association is that various common services are supposed to be provided by the respondent and there is failure to...
Tag this Judgment!Alagudurai Singam Vs. R. Prabhakaran and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3.The Petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Melur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff as tenant except under due process of law and for costs. When the suit is pending, the respondents herein filed an application u...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuraman Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2014 made in S.C.No.210 of 2013, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.210 of 2013 on the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. The trial court framed charges under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 14.3.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further convicted the appellant under section 294(b) of I.P.C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused M...
Tag this Judgment!M/s.Visal Lubetech Corporation and Another Vs. The Additional Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: in W.P.No.33741 of 2016 :-This Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-original No.5/2016-ADC (Cus.,), dated 29.04.2016, passed by the respondent in C.No.VIII/10/19/2014-Cus- Adj., and quash the same and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the chemical examiner of CRCL whose report has been relied upon.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.Hari Radha Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2. The Writ Petitions have been filed by a Proprietorship concern and the son of the Proprietor, challenging the order-inoriginal, dated 29.04.2016, passed by the respondent, by which the goods imported by the petitioner in W.P.No.33741 of 2016, has been reclassified, its assessable value rev...
Tag this Judgment!D. Murugan Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.07.2016 made in W.P.No.31436 of 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner, who has successfully completed one year today by audaciously not vacating the leased out premises and not handing over vacant possession of the same to the respondent/Corporation, has come up with this appeal, now challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.31436 of 2015, etc batch of cases. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 3. According to the appellant, he is one of the occupants in the premises at Door No.34, Pazhani Andavar Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026 as a lessee for more than 20 years and has been paying rents together with property taxes from the year 1992 till date. The appellant along with others have ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Muthukumaran and Another Vs. Devi Meenakshi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 seeking divorce from the respondent. The said H.M.O.P was filed on 9.10.2015.The respondent has also entered appearance in the month of December 2015. Till now, no counter has been filed. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present revision to dispose of the H.M.O.P at an early date. 4. Admittedly, the respondent has not chosen to file counter affidavit, as on today. Once the counter is filed, thereafter the matter may be taken up for final disp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »