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.
M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. After hearing both sides for a while on the stay petition, I deem it appropriate to waive the predeposit of dues as per the impugned order and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally. 2. The appellants imported machinery spares and took credit as capital goods. They took 50% of the CVD paid on the capital goods on the year of import and the balance during the next financial year. However, in respect of the same goods they took CENVAT credit of full 100% of the special additional duty. Show Cause Notice dated 30.1.2008 was issued alleging that the full credit of 100% SAD taken at one go in the year of import was not regular and demanding duty of Rs.2,23,128/- being 50% of credit taken of SAD paid on the said spares. A reply dated 26.3.2008 was submitted claiming that the stature of the assessee and the circumstances under which such credit has been availed should be appreciated and any wrong doing should not be equated to deliberate action. The original authority confirmed the deman...
M/S. Deeti Agencies, Rep. by Its Proprietrix Vs. M/S. Sabana Packaging ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to replace the vacuum packaging machine or to pay Rs.70000/- with 24% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.1.2006 in O.P.No.330/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant, is the appellant. 2. The complainant being a trader in dry fruits, had purchased a vacuum packaging machine, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from its dealer, the 2nd opposite party, for a sum of Rs.70000/-, for the purpose of packing the dry fruits. From the date of installation of the machine, it was not performing well, due to manufacturing defect, and the dry fruits packed by the machine, decayed. Therefore, the complainant requested the 2nd oppos...
G.Parameswari. Vs. M.Krishnamoorthi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Inveighing the docket order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Erode in I.A.No.275 of 2010 in MCOP NO.203 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No notice is required to be ordered to be sent to the respondents.3. The short facts niggard of unnecessary details for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus : The revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.276 of 2010 under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the balance amount of Rs.3,12,264/- with accrued interest therein, lying in bank deposit to the credit of MCOP No.66 of 2007. Whereupon the Tribunal by a docket order dated 29.04.2010 negatived the said request of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on various ...
K.V.S.Nagarajan. Vs. G.V.Shyamsundar, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 24.06.2010 passed in MP No.417 of 2009 in RCA No.184 of 2009 by the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondents herein filed RCOP No.327 of 2008 before the learned Rent Controller on the ground of willful default on the part of the tenant in paying the rent. After contest, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction as against which the tenant preferred RCA No.184 of 2009, which is now pending before the appellate authority. While so, the landlords filed application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. In that the appellate authority passed the impugned order directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within the specified date. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied wi...
M.Kumaran, and anr. Vs. J.Rajesh, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful second and third defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2003 made in O.S.No.1698 of 1997, on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.2. The following are the averments in the plaint succinctly stated:2(i). The first defendant is father of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the only son to his parents. At the time of marriage, the first defendant was doing plastic business separately and earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. After the marriage his wife came to know that her husband was in the habit of consuming alcoholic drinks and addicted to the same and consequently his father could not meet the family expenses. Both the plaintiff and his mother were treated cruelly by his father/the first defendant. A complaint was also made with regard to dowry harassment with Women Police Station, Thousand Lights, Chennai. 2(ii). The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Since the first defenda...
M/S.Vijay Constructions. Vs. Mrs.P.R.Leena Mary.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Inveighing the exparte order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), Mylapore, Chennai-4 in C.C.No.202 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability.3. At the outset itself, I would like observe that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision in view of the earlier two decisions of this court reported in1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another) and2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) and certain excerpts from those two decisions would run thus:1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs....
P.Kalimuthu. Vs. the Personnel Assistant to Collector (General),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. The petitioner's father, while serving as Office Assistant in Ramanathapuram District Revenue Unit, died on 15.04.75. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Night Watchman in Class IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service by relaxing Rule 5(1) of Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and he joined duty on 09.12.84. At the time of his appointment, he was only as 8th standard discontinued candidate. Subsequently, he was also promoted as Office Assistant and joined the said post on 01.04.85. As per Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, a person who is appointed in any of the of the post in Class IV, should have completed five years of service in that post and should have passed 8th standard for getting promotion to the post of Office Assistant. As the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant within a short span of four months from the date of his appointment as Night Watchman, his service records were perused and it was found that there were some corrections in the entries relating to his educationa...
Mansoor Alikhan. Vs. W.S.Seetharaman, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Both these appeals arise out of common order dated 19.01.2009, made in Contempt Petition Nos.474 and 757 of 2007. The appellant herein is arrayed as a respondent in Contempt Petition No.474 of 2007 as well as in Contempt Petition No.757 of 2007.2. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of punishment and directions given in the impugned common order, had preferred these appeals. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of these contempt appeals are as follows:-" (i) The Contempt Petition No.474 of 2007 was filed by V.K.John, son of Late K.Babu John. He is the plaintiff in C.S.No.423 of 1995. The Contempt Petition No. 757 of 2007 was filed by W.S.Seetharaman, who is arrayed as third defendant in the above said suit. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above Contempt Petitions would disclose that the suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995 was filed against one Mr.Appu John, and his sister Mrs.Leelie Seetharaman, seeking partition of the Estate against V.K.Jo...
Arunachalam. Vs. Assistant Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.1.2007, made in A.S.No.89 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.3.2006, made in O.S.No.297 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.297 of 2003, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.297 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity service connection, belonging to the petitioner, in T.V.Pudur electricity agricultural service connection No.739, in survey No.154/4 of Vannankudikadu Village, and for costs.3. The plaintiff had obtained the electricity s...
Mr.R.Murali S/O Late A.Radhakrishnan. Vs. State of Tamilnadu by the Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the second respondent to permit any recognised Hospital to operate the petitioner by Dr.V.Pathak pursuant to the representation dated 29.5.2010 and the No Objection Certificate issued by the Authorization Committee to the petitioner dated 23.10.2009.3. (i) According to the petitioner, he is a Senior Lecturer, Pharmacy Department in Annamalai University and he is aged 42 years and in July 2009 he was diagnosed with a kidney problem. As a result, he has been undergoing haemodialysis from 05.08.2009 onwards. As the petitioner's condition is serious, he has to undergo haemodialysis for as many as 3 days a week and the length of haemodialysis keeps increasing. Therefore, he has to undergo kidney transplant and he has obtained necessary approval from the Authorization Committee of Tamil Nadu. He is awaiting the operation to be performed in any recognized hospital by Dr.V.Pathak...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »