Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

T. Venkateswaran Vs. Muthuraj and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad60; (2008)8MLJ1073

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner.2. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows:The appellant, who was the second respondent in the writ petition, filed on 01.07.2002 a complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') alleging that the first respondent herein acted in violation of the human rights of the appellant by physically assaulting him and using filthy language against him without any reason and thus preventing the appellant from recovering his gold ornaments from one M.M.Rangaswamy of Lakshmi Gold Bankers and his agents. We are not going into the merits of those allegations. When such a complaint was filed on 01.07.2002 before the Commission in respect of an incident which took place on 28.02.2002, it was filed very much within one year. On the said complaint being filed, the Commission issued summons on 16.4.2003 and hearing took...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sharp Designer Wear

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)24VST426(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In this case, the Revenue is challenging the Tribunal's order, settingh aside the penalty.2. Heard Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) Appearingh for the Revenue and Mr. Shanmugam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The relevant paragraph of the Tribunal's order reads as follows:9. Penality: The point for consideration is whether the adaptation of formula can be termed as a best judgment assessment. In this only the purchase value of goods as per accounts has been adopted. It is not the case of the assessing officer that the dealer had suppressed any purchases. Since the purchase and first sales are not proportionate, he has fixed it by adding gross profit to the net purchase value as per accounts. There is no concealment of any turnover as such. So, we feel that for invoking penalty, there should be a best judgment assessment passed under Section 12(2). As we are consistently holdingh that as per Jayaraj Nadar's case : [19...

The Special Commissioner Treasury and Accounts Office, Saidapet, Chenn ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The appellants have challenged the order of the District Forum, which proceeds as follows: Complainant Present. Opposite parties represented. Seen the endorsement as to withdrawal. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Cost Rs.1000/- each payable by opposite parties 1 to 3 within a month. 3. According to the learned counsel for appellant, the appellants are aggrieved with regard to the payment of cost of Rs.1000/-, by contending that the complainant cannot be construed as a consumer within the meaning of the Act. That apart, it is further submitted that the appellants 1 and 2 have no connection whatsoever with the complainants and the complainants are employed only in the office of the 3rd appellant/ 3rd opposite party. In the light of the above, the appeal is filed amongst various grounds, as set out therein. 4. The complaint came to be filed f...