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 Branch Manager, M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. M. Prave ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant /opposite party, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,21,700/- towards the balance of the assessed damage value, alongwith compensation of Rs.2500/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 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.25.5.2005 in COP No.60/1998.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Vellore in OP.No.60/1998 dt.25.5.2005, wherein the opposite party/ appellant failed in their attempt to resist the case, successfully. 2. The complainant/ respondent being the owner of a lorry, bearing Regn. No.TCB 8208, insured the same with the opposite party on 10.3.1995, covering the period, till 9.3.1996, wherein the opposite party assured to indemnify the loss if any, sustained by the owner/assured, of the vehicle. 3. The com...
Sakthivel. Vs. John Victor,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 24.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.1521 of 2007 in MACTOP No.369 of 2002 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the respondent after service, there is no response.3. The shorts facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The respondent filed MACTOP No.369 of 2002 seeking compensation, by invoking Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act as against two persons, so to say the revision petitioner herein and the alleged driver of the tractor. After receipt of notice in the MCOP, the revision petitioner entered appearance and filed his counter contending that he was not in any way concerned with the tractor and the trailer. There is no Insurance Company also figuring as a party, because it appears there was no insurance coverage for the said vehicles....
Commissioner of Income Tax .. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. In view of the common issues involved in all the appeals and the parties being the same, these appeals have been taken up together for disposal.2. The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging the order of assessment for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The said appeals have been filed with the condonation of delay applications seeking to condone the delay of 265, 82, 82, 265, 82 and 82 days respectively. The assessee filed applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating that the appeals could not be filed against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed time in view of the fact that the assessment orders have been misplaced and the assessee was made to change the authorised representative viz., Chartered Accountant. It is further stated that, in view of the above said facts, the records will have to be received from the erstwhile authorised representative to the present one, there was...
M.Ramakrishnan. Vs. Sri Kulasekara Ramanuja Trust and K.Munusamy Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Inveighing the fair and decreetal order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the learned District Munsif, Kancheepuram in E.P.No.168 of 2008 in O.S.No.535 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. The short facts niggard of unnecessary details for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus : The respondents herein obtained a decree for declaration of title and for recovery of possession as against the revision petitioner herein. As against the said decree, appeal was filed by the revision petitioner. Subsequently it appears the said appeal was dismissed for default. In the meanwhile, in the E.P.filed, the revision petitioner/ judgment debtor/D1 filed counter. However, he was set exparte and delivery order was passed. Subsequently E.A was filed to get set aside the exparte order of delivery passed in the EP but the lower court dismissed the E.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on various grounds.4. ...
N.Sakthirajan. Vs. Nesamani Transport Corporation Limited, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. The petitioner was working as a Chief Accounts Officer in Nesamani Transport Corporation (presently Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation), Nagercoil. On 18.7.1988, the Managing Director of the said Corporation by his proceeding in No.18/CM/PC/NTC/88 issued a charge memorandum levelling as many as five charges. The petitioner submitted a due explanation for the same denying all the above charges. But, there was no further progress made on the basis of the said charge memorandum, instead, a fresh charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director by his proceedings in No.03217/Legal.4/Disc./NTC/89 dated 9.5.1989. However, there is a reference about the charge memorandum dated 18.7.1988 in this charge memorandum. In the charge sheet dated 9.5.1999, there were as many as 12 charges framed. The petitioner denied all the charges and duly submitted an explanation on 19.6.1989 itself. Thereafter not satisfied with the same, an enquiry into the said charges was ordered...
Smt.S.Sukhni Bai, and ors. Vs. M/S.Southern Refractories and Minerals, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by the VII Appellate Rent Controller, Chennai, confirming the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP.No.2082 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed by the landlords.2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(a) The revision petitioners/landlords filed the RCOP.No.2082 of 2006 invoking Sections 14(I))(b), 10(2)(II)(B) and 10(2)(II)(A) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the following grounds:(i) For demolition and reconstruction;(ii) The tenant used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; and(iii) The tenant sub-let the demised premises.(b) The matter was contested by the respondents/tenants. Ultimately the lower Court dismissed the RCOP.(c) As against the said order of the lower Court, appeal was filed by the landlords ...
Thangamuthu Pillai, and ors. Vs. the Commissioner Hindu Religious and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Arulmigu Pattalamman and Muthaiyasamy temples are situated at Melmangalam Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. It is a public temple and is in existence for more than 100 years. In 1976, persons representing 5 communities viz., Ambalam, Servai, Pandaram, Konar and Pillai applied to frame a Scheme under Section 64 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Shortly "the Act") before the then Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madurai. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the matter and framed a Scheme in O.A.No.8/1976 by an order dated 13.05.1982 for administration of the temple. As per the Scheme, the administration have been vested with 5 Trustees and each one of the Trustees would be selected from the members of the aforesaid 5 communities. The Trustees have to elect one among them as a Chairman. The tenure of Trustees was fixed at 3 years.2.Later, some persons representing Rajakula Ahamudaiy...
M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. The time chart furnished by the Ld. Vice President of the appellant’s firm is reproduced below, which reflects the dates of various events relevant to this case:- S. No. Events Date Demand confirmed 1. Rs. 1,20,20,51918.07.96 Rs. 42,79,60027.12.96 --------------------- Rs. 1,63,00,119 --------------------- 2. Payment made against above demand pending appeal. Rs. 89,04,70013.01.98 Rs. 73,95,41927.03.98 -------------------- Rs. 1,63,00,119 -------------------- 3. Commissioner (A) passed common 12.05.98 Order dropping demand on 4. Refund claim for Rs. 11,20,508/- pending Department’s appeal against order at (3) Above, filed on 26.03.02 5. Order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the above claim passed on 18.09.02 6. Hon’ble Tribunal dismissed the OIA At (3) above on 30.05.03 7. Impugned order passed by CCE (A) on 31.03.04 2. We find that the appellants have made the payment for the impugned amounts in pursuance ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. J.M.T. Granites and Export ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue for determination in these three appeals as to whether cutting of granite blocks into slabs amounts to “manufacture” attracting levy of excise duty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the apex court’s decision in Aman Marble Industries Vs CCE [2003 (157) ELT 393 (SC)] to hold that process carried out by the assessees of cutting marble blocks into slabs does not amount to “manufacture”. On the other hand, ld. SDR relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner Vs Pratap Singh [2003 (153) ELT 711] against which the assessees’ S.L.P. was dismissed by the apex court and reported in 2003 (156) ELT A382 (SC). Ld. counsel for the assessees draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Anmol Granites Vs UOI [2006 (199) ELT 769 (Raj.)] holding that cutting and polishing of granites into slabs and tiles does not amount to “man...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Bhuwalka Steel Industries ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. The department is in appeal as the authorities below have imposed penalty of only Rs.1,42,695/- on the respondents in stead of penalty equivalent to differential duty of Rs.3,42,638/-. We find that the authorities below have imposed a lesser penalty taking into consideration the fact that part of the differential amount was paid by the respondents prior to issue of the show-cause notice. Both sides agree that in view of the subsequent decision of the apex court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC)], equal penalty is imposable even if duty has been paid prior to issue of the SCN so long as the ingredients of Section 11AC are established. 2. Accordingly, in this case, the penalty amount should have been equal to the differential duty of Rs.3,42,638/-. 3. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.)], has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »