Chennai Court March 2010 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.
R Venkata Ratnam Versus the Union of India, Rep by Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2010
Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) The petitioner has approached the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh for setting aside the impugned order of the fourth respondent vide letter No.13676654/426/D-Per(A) of 06.11.2004 and of the second respondent letter No.8/40502/TB Appeal/04/AG/PS-4(A) of 16.08.2004 seeking sanction of disability pension (including service pension) to the petitioner, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal after the formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and re-numbered as TA No.92 of 2009. 2. The petitioners affidavit to the petition briefly runs as follows : 2(a) The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 04.03.1978 and after initial training at Brigade of the GUARDS, Kamptee, he was posted to 6 GUARDS located at NEFA, where he served from 15.12.1979 to 28.04.1980. The petitioner was invalided out of service on 03.02.1981 by a Medical Board held at Command Hospital, Eastern Command , Calcutta and was told by the ...
Mrs. Nila Vishnuram Vs. the Hindustan Motors, Gly, West Bengal and Ano ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had purchased a Car from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,79,843/-, which was later registered as Taxi. Because of the fact that the vehicle was registered and used as taxi so as Contessa Classic Tourist Taxi, the complainant is entitled to a refund of Central Excise, a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is liable to be refunded by the Central Excise Authorities, through the manufacturer namely the first opposite party. The complainant, applied for the central excise concession, through the second opposite party, who forwarded the same to the first opposite party, submitting all the necessary documents, required. Despite repeated demands and enquiry, there was no proper response. After lapse of 2 years and 8 months, they have informed, as if the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of Rs.30,000/- since the car was not registered within 9...
Kewal Nath Ram Versus Union of India Rep.by Secretary to Government Mi ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2010
ACA Adityan) The petitioner has moved the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras for redressal of his grievance by way of filing the Writ Petition 6998 of 2009 which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal after the formation of this Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and re-numbered as TA No.50 of 2009. 2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this case as narrated in the affidavit to the petition are as follows : 2(a) The petitioner was enrolled in Army on 06.07.1984 as Sepoy Clerk in Group B Service directly and passed TTT-III Test at ACTS, Aurangabad on 06.11.1985. After completion of his training, he was posted to 5 JAKRIF on 06.02.1986. He was appointed as Lance Naik Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1988 as per regiment promotion rules and the existing promotion policy. He was promoted to the rank of Naik w.e.f. 01.12.1988 based on the seniority maintained by the record office of JAKRIF. The petitioners seniority was fixed as per Army Head Quarters in...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Rayalaseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Rangaraju. He states that the authorities below have dropped the demand of interest on amounts paid through supplementary invoice. He states that the interest in such cases is payable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). The learned SDR further states that the interest amount has also not been quantified by the authorities below. As such, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for passing a fresh order applying the ratio of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents before passing a fresh order particularly in regard to quantification of the interest amount. The Department’s appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S Tractor and Farm Equipments Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Heard both sides. The respondents have paid automobile cess on exported tractors which was exempted. The authorities below have sanctioned a refund. In particular, the lower appellate authority has followed a decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2007 (218) ELT 174 (Raj.). The Department has filed an appeal based on the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra - 1991 (53) ELT 408. I find that the said decision of the Tribunal relates to grant of rebate under the then Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As such, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to this case in which refund has been granted. Consequently, I am of the view that the Department’s appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed....
M/S. Visteon Automotive Systems (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Heard both sides. Shri R. Srinivasan learned consultant appearing for the appellant states that the issue involved in this case is payment of interest on amounts received through supplementary invoices. He fairly agrees that the issue is covered against the appellants by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). As such after waiving the requirement of predeposit in both the cases, the appeals are dismissed....
M/S. Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Heard both sides. Shri Gopal Krishna Mundhra, Manager (Excise) of the appellant-company states that the appellant’s main unit in Mumbai has distributed the service tax credit to the Cuddalore Unit which has been disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that the credit does not relate to the Cuddalore Unit. He states that a similar case was dealt by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal vide M/s. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2009-TIOL-2109-CESTAT-BANG and the issue was decided in favour of the appellants. He prays for similar decision in the present case. 2. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal who supports the impugned order on the ground that the credit distributed to the appellant’s unit in Cuddalore does not relate to the service utilized by this unit. 3. After hearing both sides I find that a similar issue has been dealt in the case of ECOF Industries (supra) and the appeal was allowed in that case on the following grounds:- “The combin...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Top Detective Security Services Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
Heard both sides. The Department is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. I find that the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed reasoned order and has applied the provisions of Section 80 for setting aside the penalties. As such, the impugned order calls for no interference. Consequently, the Department’s appeal is dismissed....
Canara Bank, Rep. by Its Deputy General Manager, Teynampet, Chennai Vs ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), Chennai, seeking a compensation of Rs.19.03 lakhs on various heads, as detailed at the end of the complaint, alleging that when she had purchased some goods at Mumbai, used the ATM cum Debit Card issued by the opposite party, which failed to operate, satisfying the requirements, thereby, the deficiency had caused humiliation, insult etc., in the presence of others, that when they have approached the opposite party Bank though she being a senior citizen, not properly treated at the time of issue of cheque book, as well as at the time of taking Demand Draft as well at the time of withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- etc., for which deficiency, they are entitled to above said sum, which includes gender bias also. 3. The opposite party repudiating and not admitting the averments in the complaint, ...
K Tirupathi Versus the Chief of Army Staff Army Headquarters, Dhpo New ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2010
ACA Adityan The petitioner was a Gunner in the Army Service. After facing a Court Martial and awarded with the punishment of one year RI and dismissal from service, had filed this Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Madras challenging the impugned order of the third respondent bearing No.308103/15125820H/CF/28/A dated 24.04.2001 which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal after the formation of the Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and is re-numbered as TA 40/2009. 2. The facts of the case in brief as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: 2(a)The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Service as a Gunner (Operator) on 27.08.1995. After the completion of army training at Artillery Centre, Hyderabad, he was posted to 177 Field Regiment on 15.12.1996. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted to 7 Rashtriya Rifle Battalion on 21.03.1998 as extra regimental employee. Once again, he was posted back to 177 F...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »