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.
Asha Gold Covering Works.Vs. A.N.A.Haja Mohideen, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.7.2005, made in A.S.No.379 of 2004, on the file of the Vth Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 14.2.2003, made in O.S.No.3708 of 1995, on the file of the VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.3708 of 1995, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit, are the respondents herein.3. The suit, in O.S.No.3708 of 1995, had been filed by the plaintiff/appellant, praying for a decree declaring that the sale deed, dated 31.8.1994, bearing document No.28/95, and the sale deed, dated 29.3.1995, bearing document No.967/95, are null and void, and for a permanent injunction against the defendants in the said suit, who are the respondents in the present second appeal, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property, and for costs. 4. The suit property...
The Special Tahsildar.Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. These twenty nine appeals are filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Unit No.II), Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, challenging a common Judgment dated 29.06.2006 starting from L.A.O.P.Nos.337 of 2003 and batch cases on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court IV Poonamallee.2. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS), appearing for the Acquiring authority, Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for CMDA, and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the claimants3. These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands of the respondents/ claimants were situated in Malayambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of the Outer Ring Road connecting the Sub urban areas of Chennai Metropolitan City from Kundrathur Village to Minjur via Ponneri, Avadi.. A notification under Section 4(1) wa...
M/S. Smp Steel Corporation Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. For the reasons recorded below, I waive predeposit of Rs.1,95,636/- and proceed to decide the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides, as the issue in dispute stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan and decision of the Tribunal. 2. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, upon the assessees who challenged the same by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dated 25.02.10, set aside the penalties. In the mean while, a Show Cause Notice proposing revision of the order of the adjudicating authority was issued in March, 2009 and Revision Order came to be passed in June, 2010, subsequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalties. It is clear from Section 84(4) that power of revision cannot be exercised in respect of any issue if an appeal is on such i...
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by extension of credit of Rs.1,16,634/- to the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of Polyester and Viscose Yarn etc. Credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the documents such as Debit Notes, Freight Certificates etc., were not prescribed documents for the purpose of taking credit. Credit was disallowed and penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of only Rs. 2,515/- on the ground that the documents on the strength of which this amount was taken was not addressed to the assessees. He, however, extended the credit of the amount of Rs.1,16,634/-, on the ground that the documents on the basis of which credit was taken contained all the requisite particulars for the purpose of extending the credit. He reduced the penalty on the assessees to Rs.2000/-. Hence this appeal of the Revenue. 2. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and find no warrant to interfere with the impugned order ...
Dr. C. Vijayakumar, Consultant Physician Vs. K.M. Raju and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The unsuccessful opposite party, as petitioner before the District Forum, in CMP. No.97/2006, is the Revision petitioner. 2. The respondent in this revision, as complainant, filed a case against the opposite parties, leveling medical negligence, for that claiming a sum of Rs.7 lakhs, as compensation, which is opposed by filing written version. 3. The 2nd opposite party, who is attached with the 1st opposite party, as consultant, by going through the averments in the complaint, felt that the claim is barred by limitation. Therefore a petition came to be filed before the District Forum, to reject the claim, or dismiss the claim, as barred by limitation, which was opposed. 4. The District Forum, taking the view, that the complaint has been filed within two years, from the date of notice, which should be construed, as within the time, dismissed the petition, thereby giving cause of action to the 2nd opposite party, to come to this commission,...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›