Chennai Court August 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.
The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A. Vijayk ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
(The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.15203.20 being the claim made with 12% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.8.3.2006 in O.P.No.198/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant had taken mediclaim insurance policy, from the opposite party, not only for himself, but also for the family members, from the year 2001, commencing from 27.6.2001, and the same was renewed, even for the period 2003-2004. 3. In the month of January 2003, the complainants wife Kalaiselvi, had excessive bleedings and severe abdomen pain, for which she had taken treatment, in First Med Hospital at Chennai, where the disease was diagnosed as Adenomysis, for which lap...
AmrithaA. Vs. V.Krishna Kumar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1.This Appeal arises out of the judgment in F.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2004 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent was solemnised on 28.10.1983 and out of the lawful wedlock, two children were born first son was born on 21.4.1985 and second son was born on 1.9.1988. Case of Appellant/wife is that after the marriage, she found that the Respondent was abusing medicines like cough syrups and consuming them in great quantities and that he had no interest in the Appellant and showed indifference and neglect towards her. Further case of Appellant is that Respondent's indifference and neglect towards her caused mental agony to her. Further case of Appellant is that the Respondent spoke to her on limited occasions a...
Dr.N.R.Prithivirajan. Vs. K.L.Jaya, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order of this Court dated 3.4.2009 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.783 and 784 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009, these Review applications are filed. 2.Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these review applications would run thus: One Shoukath Ali-the first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.908 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs: "To grant decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants,a) permanently restraining the defendants and their men from in any way alienating, encumbering or causing damage to the suit property, b) granting permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them, their men, followers, subordinates, servants, agents, etc from any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective schedule of plaint schedule properties. c) directing the defendants to pay costs of this suit to the plaintiff." (extr...
A.T.Ganapathi. Vs. the Collector, Cuddalore District. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. The petitioner had purchased a vacant site from one Selvaraj by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007. The vacant site in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is at Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. As per the sale deed, the land measures east-west 37 = feet and north-south 75 feet. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that there was a pathway and according to the petitioner, it was mistakenly mentioned in the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the revenue records also show wrong entries.2. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property. 'B' schedule property is 9 ft east-west and 75 ft north-south in the 'A' schedule property, that measures 37 = ft east-west and 75 ft north-s...
National Insurance Company Limited, Divisonal Office, Vs. Dr.Geetha Du ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Feeling aggrieved by the apportionment of negligence and liability in MCOP.No.14/2002 apportioning 60% negligence to the van driver bearing registration No.PY-01 B 8245 and quantum of compensation, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed CMA No.2712/2004.2. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation as well as apportioning 40% negligence and liability to the deceased-Dr.Durairaj, Claimants have preferred CMA.No.1395/2004.3. Since, both the Appeals arise out of the same order and point for consideration are one and the same, both the Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred in the original rank in CMA.No.2712/2004 preferred by the Appellant-National Insurance Company.4. Brief facts are that on 28.05.1996 while deceased-Dr.Durairaj was returning home from his hospital by 11.30 P.M. in his Fiat car bearing registration No.TNW 6886, the Tempo Goods van bearing registration No.PY-01 B 8245 owned by the 4th ...
R.Gunasekaran. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Typist by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 09.11.94 and he was posted in Villupuram District Revenue Unit. Subsequently, his services in the post of Typist were also regularised with effect from 09.11.94. Thereafter, in the year 1995, the petitioner submitted his representation for transfer to the office of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai. Accepting the request of the petitioner for transfer, the Joint Commissioner of the Revenue Administration, Chennai, issued an order in Na.Ka.No.Y2/18326/95, dated 28.08.1995, appointing the petitioner as a Typist in the Revenue Administration Department on Services Lent Basis, with a condition that the petitioner is not entitled for travelling allowance for his transfer, as the transfer was made at his own request and also mentioned that the petitioner would loose his seniority. In the meanwhile, in the year 1996, the Assistant Commissioner (Pers...
M/S. Roja Match Industries Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Heard both sides for a while on the stay petition. Considering the entire amount of disputed duty stands paid before issue of Show Cause Notice, predeposit of balance amount of dues as per the impugned order is waived and stay petition allowed. Considering the nature of dispute, with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. When the officers visited the factory premises on 19.10.2007, it appears that they came across some private records indicating production/clearance of match boxes relating to the period March 2007 to September 2007. Shri K. Venkaiah, Proprietor, in his statement given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, admitted production and clearance without payment of duty. He claimed that the goods were produced on trial run and were not of good quality. The statement was followed by payment of duty of Rs.1,00,116/- on 19.10.2007 and the balance amount was paid on 18.6.2008. Show Cause Notice was issued on 25.3.2008 and the appe...
Rare Crafts Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Export-Seaport) has held that Commissioner of Customs, Chennai has jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice dt. 27.3.2007 under the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 for confiscation of export cargo of red sanders wood in the guise of handicrafts to Singapore (red sanders wood is prohibited for export under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Schedule II of Export Policy and value added products of above wood are restricted for export under licence issued by DGFT subject to certificate from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State from where the stocks were procured as well as other requirements under CITES), proposing confiscation of items made of Padak and proposing imposition of penalty on the exporter, partnership firm and its partners and others. 2. The Commissioner’s finding is reproduced herein below :- “In terms of i) Sec 4 of Customs Act 1962, the Central Government may ...
M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. After hearing both sides, I admit the appeal. The stay petition is disposed of as the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.2,51,307/- after disallowing CENVAT credit and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/-. Commissioner (Appeals) granted substantial relief and upheld the demand only to the tune of Rs.3,886/- and also upheld the penalty of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The appellants have shown perseverance and filed this appeal challenging the upholding of demand of Rs.3,886/-. In the grounds of appeal, they have challenged only the demand relating to Rs.2,448/-. The grievance of the appellant is more against the imposition of penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, considering that the disputed duty amount is small, they are not pressing on merits against the demand. However, he submits that there was no justification for imposition of penalty. 5. I have carefully considered the submission and perused the records. It i...
M/S. Sapna Packaging Industries Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 27/2010 (M-II) dated 16.3.2010. 2. Considering the nature of dispute I waive predeposit of dues as per the impugned order and with the consent of both sides I take up the appeal for final disposal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellants are a manufacturer of corrugated boxes falling under Sub-Heading 481912000 and they use duty paid kraft paper as inputs. The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 for the year 2006 - 07 and after exhausting the duty-free clearances paid duty and have taken credit of duty paid on the inputs. The appellants opted for the benefit of Notification No.8/2003 with effect from 1.4.2007. Taking the closing stock of kraft paper as on 31.3.2007 as 1,07,983 Kgs. (OB as on 1.4.06 - 3,54,14 kgs.; Receipt 6,90,759 kgs. and Issue 6,18,191 kgs.) the appellants reversed the credit of Rs.1,51,224/- on 27.4.2007. The officers of internal a...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »