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.
The Owner and Another Vs. R. Senthil Kumar, Partner K.R. Enterprises
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
(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 pay Rs.87,285/- with 18% interst alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 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.17.4.2007 in O.P.No.131/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant, who is carrying on business, in textile goods, had booked two bundles of handloom goods, in the office of the 2nd opposite party, the branch of the 1st opposite party, for delivery to the consignee by name Kaveri Textiles, Ambattur, Chennai, on 2.5.2003, as per the way bill No.06766, worth about Rs.84,910, which was agreed to be carried and delivered by the opposite parties, to the consignee intact. But the consignment had not reached the destination. It appears...
P.Mani ... Vs. the Principal Secretary and the Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the year 1985. He was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I in the year 1990. He was further promoted as Regional Transport Officer in the year 2005. 2.It is stated that while the petitioner was doing work in his office at Erode on 23.02.2007, two Tahsildars of District Supply Office with Vigilance and Anti-corruption Officials entered the office at 5.00 p.m., and forcibly searched his personal belongings and also those of other staff. They seized several records saying that they came for surprise inspection of the office. The police constables, who accompanied them, blocked the passages of the office and detained all the visitors who came for their official business and seized the cash kept by them under threat and they were branded as touts used by the officials of the petitioner's office, Erode. It is also stated that the Revenue Officials obtained statements from the alleged tout...
Vijayalakshmi Nallasamy,vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.11.2008 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue her quarry lease for Survey numbers 80/5,6, 82/1B, 1E, 1F, 82/2,3,4, 83/4,5, 85/1,2,3,4 and 86/1,2 in Kandhampalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. 2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:(a) The petitioner is residing at No.16, Indragandhi Street, Palayapalayam Road, Erode Town, Erode Taluk. She made an application dated 02.03.2007 to the third respondent for rough stone and gravel quarrying lease for 10 years in Survey Nos.80/5,6, 82/1B, 82/1E, 1F, 82/2,3,4, 83/4,5, 85/1,2, 85/3,4, 86/1 and 86/2 over an extent of 6.83.50 hectares in Kandampalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk of Erode District. According to her, the said application was for renewal of lease, as she has been quarrying the fields from the year 1986. The last lease was for the period from 22.04.2002 to 21.04.2007. Hence, she ma...
S.Maran.Vs. the Branch Manager State Bank of Travancore.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
1. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He passed Higher Secondary examinations in March 2008 and secured the following marks out of 200 in each subject: Tamil 129 English 136 Physics 87 Chemistry 91 Biology 118 Mathematics 72 He joined B.E. (Computer Science) course in S.K.R. Engineering College, Agarmel, Poonamallee during 2008-2009. The course is of four years duration. He is the first person in his family to enter the portals of college education. According to him, he was not aware of the financial assistance being given by the Nationalized Banks. With great difficulty, he managed to pay the fees for the first year. On knowing that the Union of India has instructed the Banks to provide financial assistance for the purpose of education, he made an application to the respondent on 07.09.2009 seeking educational loan under the Gyan Jyothi Educational Loan Scheme. Thereafter, he visited the respondent Bank frequently. But there was no response from the respondent. It is stated th...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Tamilnadu Jai Bharath Mills, Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. It was found that they had manufactured Single Hank Plain Reel Cotton Yarn wholly out of indigenously procured cotton and removed it without payment of duty in a Domestic Tariff Area by wrongly claiming the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/97 dated 01.03.1997. The department was of the view that the assessees ought to have discharged duty liability @ 30% in terms of Notification No. 13/98 dated 02.06.98, as the appellant was an EOU (Notification No. 13/98 provided partial duty relief to the excisable goods manufactured and removed by a 100% EOU). Show Cause Notice proposing recovery of Rs. 62,585/- and proposing imposition of penalty issued. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessees; the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since Single Hank Plain Reel Cotton Yarn classifiable under Chapter 5205.11 (under ...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Tamilnadu Cements Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The Revenue has not obtained COD clearance which is required in these cases. Hence, the appeals are dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration of these appeals as and when clearances are obtained. Consequently, the cross-objections are also dismissed....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Duty demand on items such as scrapped motor and gearbox, scrapped grinding wheels and machinery parts etc., confirmed against the assessees by the adjudicating authority have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), giving raise to these appeals by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that it is not forthcoming from the impugned orders as to whether the assessees had either paid the demands confirmed or applied for waiver of pre-deposit. There is no reference to any application in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the impugned orders. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a non-speaking order without discussing any of the issues raised by the assessees before him. For both these reasons, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. We order accordingly. The cases are remitted to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision first on the applications filed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise ...
A.Mohamed Shakir. Vs. the Commissioner of Police Chennai City, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.Mohamed Shakar aged 39, has brought forth this petition for the production of his wife Zeenath Begum aged 19. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the affidavit in support of the petition. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue aged 19, took place on 25.5.2010; that they were living happily; but, there was a disturbance by the mother-in-law who came over to his house, picked up a quarrel and took her; that thereafter, a complaint was given to the police; that the police officials called both of them and advised not to disturb them; that after sometime, again his wife was kidnapped by the mother-in-law; that under the circumstances, he has given another complaint to the first respondent on 1.7.2010; but, no steps have been taken, and hence this petition is brought forth before this Court for the production of his wife. 4.The Court hea...
Chennai Port Trust, and ors.Vs. M/S.Jansee Steel Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. The Chennai Port Trust and its Officers, namely the Traffic Manager, Deputy Conservator and Harbour Master, who are the defendants in C.S.No.751/2008 pending before the learned single judge of this court are the appellants in all the three original side appeals. The plaintiff in the said civil suit is the respondent in these appeals. These three appeals have been filed against the common order dated 26.07.2010 made in A.Nos.3566 to 3568 of 2010 in the above said suit C.S.No.751/2008. 2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, can be stated thus:-i) The respondent/plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the owner of the scrap vessel "MV-ELENI", which was originally berthed in "Chokkani Yard" of Chennai Port Trust. The same is now found berthed in the Boat Basin of the Chennai Port Trust. It was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff under a sale certificate dated 21.10.1998 as a scrap vessel through the court proceedings in C.S.No.97/1997 in ...
S.Mangaiyarkarasi. Vs. M.Narayanan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No. 70 of 2006 in O.S.No.81 of 2001 dated 10.08.2006, on the file of Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.2. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel for the respondent.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the order passed by the Court below has directed to deposit 50% of the decree amount even at the stage of condonation of delay in filing an application under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC which is not justifiable, but is prejudicial to the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the condition imposed by the lower Court below is un-reasonable. He would submit in his argument that the direction to deposit of 50 % of the suit claim is an onerous condition and it would be amounting to pre-determination of the case. He would further submit in his arg...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »