Chennai Court September 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. Sri Devi Enterprises and Others Vs. Tmt. Kamala Raman
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.29000/- on taking back the refrigerator, to pay Rs.65000/- towards compensation on various heads, alongwith 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.5.10.2009 in COP No.211/2009.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants 2. The respondent, in this appeal, as complainant, claimed several reliefs, as listed in paragraph 12 of the complaint, alleging number of deficiencies, as well as unfair trade practice, as if the opposite parties have committed so, in selling a refrigerator, which failed to serve its purpose, despite report also, they have failed to rectify the same. 3. The opposite parties, though have received the notices, failed to appear before th...
Abdul Rahman S/O Rahim.Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, the Union of India, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu namely Basheer Ahmed, aged about 33 years, S/o Rahim and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 19.11.2009 passed by the first Respondent, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA Act, branding him as a Smuggler.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Habeas Corpus Petition are as follows:-According to the petitioner, the detenu came from Singapore by flight and arrived at Anna International Airport, Chennai on 8.10.2009. On deboarding of the plane, he went to Customs area. The officials attached to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), had intercepted him as if he brought electronic goods and gold in excess value, though the detenu has brought lesser value of the goods. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that without giving sufficient opportunity to the detenu to make proper declaration before the Customs Officers, and without taking into consideration, the total value of the goods dec...
M/S.Green Signal Bio Pharma Pvt. Vs. Director General of Health Servic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Raveendran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Ashokpathy for M/s.Pass Associates appearing for the third respondent.2. By consent, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. These two writ petitions involve common issues between the common parties. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common order.3. Writ Petition No.11312 of 2010 is filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's offer in accordance with tender conditions published in the tender notification No.UIP-11011/210/2010-11/BCG/TE/VPC dated 14.10.2009 issued by the second respondent and place trial orders for the supply of BCG vaccine to the said respondents in terms of the tender submitted by the petitioner on 24.11.2009.4. Writ Petition No.17522 of 2010 is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records rel...
K.Ramesh.Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Cciw/Cid.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. K.Ramesh, who figures as Accused No.6 in C.C.No.255 of 2003 and Accused No.5 in C.C.No.256 of 2003 on the file of the District Munif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli has brought-forth Crl.O.P.No.3914 of 2007 and Crl.O.P.No.3915 of 2007 for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the respective Calender cases referred to above. R.Subramani, the fifth accused in C.C.No.254 of 2003 on the file of District Munif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli has brought forth Crl.O.P.No.3916 of 2007 to quash the said criminal proceedings initiated against him. Since all the three cases came to be initiated based on three final reports filed in one and the same case viz., Crime No.1 of 2002 registered on the file of the respondent police, all these Criminal Original Petitions are taken up together for consideration and disposal by a common order. 2.The facts leading to the filing of the above said Criminal Original Petitions, in brief, are as follows:-K.Ramesh, the petitione...
Rau Padma, and ors.Vs. Gayatri Devi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Introductory :-These original side appeals are directed against the common order and decretal order dated 26 August 2008 in O.A.Nos.523 and 524/2009 and A.Nos.2962 to 2964 & 2931 of 2009 in C.S.No.438 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge granted an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondents, besides restraining them from putting up construction or creating third party interest in the suit property.Background facts :-2.Respondents filed a suit in C.S.No.438/2009 before the original side of this Court, against the appellants praying for a decree of partition of the suit property into five shares and to allot four such shares to them and for a decree of declaration to invalidate the sale deed dated 29.05.2006, executed by the first appellant and registered as Document Nos. 630, 631, 632 and 633/2006 in favour of the appellants 2 to 4.3.In the plaint ...
E.Dhayarathan.Vs. the Principal Secretary / Chairman and Managing Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer in the respondent Corporation. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 30.06.2009. He was placed under suspension by the first respondent by an order dated 12.11.2009. He is paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his last drawn wages. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to 75% of subsistence allowance, if the suspension exceeds more than six months. 2.Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to pay 75% subsistence allowance with effect from 12.05.2010 in the revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 till the date of revocation of the order of suspension. 3.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 6.21 of the Services Rules of SIPCOT and the same is extracted hereunder: "6.21. Subsistence allowance:An employee of the Corporation who is ...
R.Ravichandran ... Vs. the Chairman-cum-managing Director Tamilnadu St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. The petitioner who is aggrieved by the awarding of transport contract to the 4th respondent by the third respondent is before this court.2. The third respondent invited tender for transport of Indian Made Foreign Liquor through TASMAC depot, Pollachi to retail units and the said tender is valid for a period from 26.2.2010 to 25.2.2011. The petitioner participated in the tender (both Commercial Bit and Price Bid). The tender was opened on 19.2.2010 and the 4th respondent was declared as successful bidder inspite of objections raised by the petitioner that the Commercial Bid submitted by the 4th respondent did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the tender, especially clause 20(b) of the tender document of the Pollachi depot. In this regard, the petitioner gave a representation on 22.2.2010 for review of awarding contract to the 4th respondent, which was rejected by the third respondent on 23.2.2010. Against the said order an appeal dated 25.2.2010 was filed before the second respo...
Samuel BenjamIn Peters. Vs. M/S.Hebron Schools Association, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. These Appeal Suits were filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the common judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 in O.S.No.21 of 2007 and O.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. 2. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Periyasamy leading Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel for the respondents.3. O.S.No.21 of 2007 was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for possession of the flat with furniture described in the plaint and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.200/- per day from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation from the appellant/defendant and for costs. 4. The appellant filed a suit against the defendants before the Court of District Munsif at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.238/2006, praying for a declaration, declaring that the enquiry proceedings initiated against him was illegal, null and void and for further declaration that the School Management was n...
Cce, Madurai Vs. Sri C. Venkatesh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Does the Commissioner (Appeals) have the power to remand the case to the adjudicating authority after amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001? 2. I have heard both sides on the appeal involving the above issue. I note that in the case of Commissioner Vs Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd.[2008 (224) ELT 393 (PandH)], the Hon’ble Punjab High Court held that power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals) having been expressly taken away by the Finance Act, 2001, he is divested of the power to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority. The Bench concluded that there is expression of necessary intendment in deletion of the expression “or may refer the case back”, by the Legislature under Section 128A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of CCE Jalandhar Vs B.C.Kataria [2008 (221) ELT 508 (PandH)], the High Court followed the ratio of the Division Bench judgement in the Enkay (India) Rubber Co. ...
K. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Heard both sides on the appeal against the Order-in-Revision under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the assessee, a proprietary concern of Shri K. Gopalakrishnan, engaged in providing “mandap keeping service” on the ground of deliberate non-inclusion of amenity charges in the assessable value of mandap keeping service, for the purpose of computing service tax liability. 2. The profit and loss account of the assessee was prepared on the basis of ledger account maintained under the heading “Amenities Charges” and income tax was also paid on the said income. However, in spite of the above, the assessee claimed that the amenities charges did not belong to his business but to his son. However, no evidence was produced in support of the claim and further, the account specifically show that the amenities were provided by the assessee. The fixed asset schedule of income-tax return file...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »