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 Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The appeal in C.M.A.No.1974 of 2006 is preferred by the State Transport Corporation against the award of compensation of Rs.24,59,700/- in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2940 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) for the injuries sustained by the Respondent/Claimant in a road traffic accident on 22.5.1999.2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimant has filed Cross Objection No.26 of 2006.3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.5.1999 at about 9.30 a.m, when the Claimant was riding on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.DL 45-R-9346 from Nandhampakkam to Madras and nearing the Butt Road Bus Stop, the Respondent's driver drove the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-23-N.1035 from Vellore to Madras in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Claimant's vehicle and as a result, the claimant sustained head injuries and admitted in the Hospital. The Respondent has been working as Accounts Executive in Country Co...
V. Lakshminarayanan Vs. City Corp. Credit Service India Ltd., Rep. by ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent / opposite party, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pa Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, and a sum of Rs.8600/- under Dines Card surrendered by the complainant 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.21.10.2005 in OP No.281/2002.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The complainant unable to succeed in his attempt, before the District Forum, has come to this Commission as appellant. 2. The complainant was the holder of Diners card bearing No.365596404, issued by the Citi Bank. By using the said card, it seems, he had purchased some goods, and in the accounting there was some problems. By going through the account, when the complainant felt there was deficiency, on the part of the card issuing authority, after issuance of notice, a case has been filed,...
Mr.G.Jayaraman. Vs. the Settlement Commission. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1998 but the same could not be disposed of by this Court for quite some time since the original bundle and connected records were found missing. On a note put up in this regard, a learned single judge of this Court (Honble Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian (as he then was)) after hearing the parties to this writ petition issued an order dated 11.09.2009 to the Registry to reconstruct the bundle and to proceed further. As per the said order, the entire case records were reconstructed and that is how the reconstructed records are now placed before me for disposal.2. The petitioner is an income tax assessee. He derives his income from four sources viz., from vegetable business, real estate business in the name of Janaki real Estate, a screening theatre called Bharani Theatre taken on lease and distribution of films under the name of Devi Karumariamman Films. For the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, he filed income tax returns on 22...
Mrs.P.Manimekalai. Vs. R.Kothandaraman ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment of the Family Court dated 21.4.2004 made in O.P.No.73 of 2004 on the file of I Additional family Court, Chennai allowing the Petition filed by the Respondent/husband under Sections 13(1-a) and (1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The unsuccessful wife is the Appellant.2. The marriage between Appellant and Respondent was solemnised on 12.5.1986 and a daughter was born on 15.4.1989. After the marriage, the spouses were living in Bangalore. The averments in the Petition filed by the Respondent/husband are as under:The Appellant used to pick up quarrel with Respondent's aged mother and sister and the Appellant frequently was threatening that she would file dowry complaint. The Respondent further averred that the Appellant often threatened to commit suicide and thus caused mental agony to the Respondent. Due to differences, the Appellant left the matrimonial house in 1991. The Respondent filed Petition for divorce on ...
R.Murugamalai. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. The petitioner is a Freedom Fighter. According to him, an arrest warrant was pending against him during the Quit India Movement and he successfully evaded the arrest. He remained underground from 1942 to 1944. He applied for pension under the "SWATHANTHIRA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME, 1980" vide application dated 12.08.1981. Along with his application, he enclosed two certificates, one from Mr.A.B.Nagier and another from Mr.A.M.Lakshmanan certifying that the petitioner remained underground during 1942 to 1944, while the British police were trying to arrest him for his active participation in the Gandhian Movement, including the Quit India Movement. Unfortunately, his application was rejected by the respondent by an order dated 28.02.1983 on the ground that he failed to produce any acceptable documentary evidence relating to his suffering. The petitioner made a review application dated 01.11.1986, enclosing the certificate from one Mr.Gangadhara Parasuram certifying that the petitio...
Sridevi Venkataswamy. Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. The prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the proceedings dated 9.11.2005 of the first respondent and direct the first respondent to waive the excessive interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. All the writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner, who is a widow of one Venkataswamy, who was Director of M/s.Venkatesa Spinners Private Limited. Petitioner's husband and other Directors looked after the day-to-day affairs of the said Company. Petitioner was housewife. Petitioner's husband died on 28.3.1991 leaving behind the petitioner and a minor daughter. Petitioner became one of the Directors of the said Spinners Limited after the demise of her husband. According to the petitioner, she had no knowledge about the Company affairs and Income-tax matters.3. On 1.4.1996 M/s.Venkatesa Spinners Private Limited demerged, after which the petitioner seized to be the Director of the said Company. Till 1.4.1996, petitioner was deriving income...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Thiru. Shanmugam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. The Insurance Company is on appeal as against the award in a case of injury, where the Tribunal granted a relief of awarding compensation at Rs.68,806/- payable at 7.5% per annum interest by the Insurance Company to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. The accident had occurred on 31.7.2005.2. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident, a policy was there in existence, however, the policy contain a clause that in case of dishonour of premium of cheque, the document,namely, the policy stands automatically cancelled ab initio. The policy contains a cheque No.039617 dated 8.7.2005.3. As far as the present case is concerned, the defence taken by the Insurance Company is that the owner of the vehicle, who had gone in for Insurance with the appellant herein issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,958/-. Unfortunately the cheque given by the insured was dishonoured by Syndicate Bank, Bangalore. Ex.R.5 is the return memo from the Bank and Ex.R.6, the advise slip. The Insurance Company sen...
M/S. Sns Detergents Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The authorities below have included a sum of US $ 70,000/- towards basic engineering charges paid by the importer in the assessable value of critical equipment for non-tower detergent plant imported from Italy; namely (1) Kettemix Reactor (2) Rotating Mixer (3) Liquid component dosing pump and (4) fluid bed dryer, under the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, providing for addition of the payment for engineering development, art work, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in India and necessary for the production of imported goods, for the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. 2. We have heard both sides. The material on record clearly brings out that the drawings and designs did not relate to the production of imported goods but for the non-tower detergent powder plant to be set up in Pondicherry. Theref...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Futura Polymers Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in this appeal pertains to the correctness of the value adopted by the assessees/respondents for sale of polyester chips of amorphous grade to related persons from the EOU - the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the transaction value on the ground that the value adopted by the assessees closely approximates to the value of contemporaneous imports by others. 2. We have heard both sides. As per Rule 4(3) (b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, transaction value cannot be rejected if the same closely approximates to the value of similar goods imported. Initially, value was loaded by the Asst. Commissioner who also imposed penalty upon the assessees; his order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); the assessees preferred an appeal bearing No.E/561/03 which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.218/2003 dt.21.5.2003 by way of remand to the lower appellate authority for fresh consideration after examining the annexure to the appeal filed b...
Cce, Chennnai Vs. M/S. Futura Polymers Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the impugned goods namely “Amorphouos Chips” of normal grade have been sold at a price which closely approximates the price of contemporaneously imported goods from other countries. Though in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, imported goods from other countries cannot strictly be considered to be similar goods but, such goods being broadly comparable, acceptance of price of such comparable goods contemporaneously imported for the purpose of valuation of goods sold by the respondent EOU cannot be faulted with. In fact, we have rejected another appeal No. E/94/04 filed by the department against the very same respondents today, where proposed enhancement of the value by the department was rejected, since the value adopted closely approximated price of contemporaneously imported comparable goods. We see no reason to apply a different standard in this case. 2. We als...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »