Chennai Court January 2011 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.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Suri and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
No one is present on behalf of the respondents. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the ld. SDR appearing for the department. I find that only a small amount of Rs.25,522/- is involved in this case. As such, department’s appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case....
Tvs Autolec Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
Heard both sides. Shri M.Kannan, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned capital goods in respect of which 50% credit was availed in the first year of receipt in the appellants own factory within the same year were removed to the appellants’ sister concern. The appellants have reversed an amount equal to 50% of the credit amount which was taken. The department has demanded full amount of duty on the capital goods, which, according to Mr.Kannan, is not justified as only 50% of the duty amount was taken as credit. He also prays for setting aside of the penalty amount as the appellants were under a bona fide belief that only the amount of credit taken is required to be reversed. 2. Heard ld. SDR, Shri C.Rangaraju. He states that at the material time, under Rule 57AC, only 50% of the credit was available as credit in the first financial year in respect of the capital goods. As per the condition specified in Rule 57AC (2) (b), balance 50% of the duty cr...
E. Kasturi Vs. S. Sathavoo
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Petitioner/ opposite party. The District Forum has dismissed the petition. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.5.10.2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 5.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either parties, this commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The order under challenge, in this revision is the dismissal of I.A.No.8/2010, in CC.No.50/2009, where a prayer was sought for, to reject, or strike off the complaint, as not maintainable, for want of cause of action. 2. The respondent, in this revision, as complainant, claimed a sum of Rs.8,84,000/-, representing the pronote amount, in addition to interest, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.93000/-, paid to the opposite party, further in addition to a sum of Rs.10000/-, as compensation for mental agony, against the ...
The Secretary, Vriddachalam Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rura ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.10,145/- towards the expenses incurred and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. 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.20.12.2006 in C.C.88/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in CC.88/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, who suffered an adverse order, challenges the same in this appeal. 2. The respondent in this appeal as the complainant, in order to purchase a milch cow, applied loan, pay...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. P. Arumugham (Dec ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.45,000/- towards balance amount as per the repair charges with interest at 12% p.a. from 27.5.2004, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, stress and strain and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards 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.28.06.2007 in C.C.122/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of appellant as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/complainant being the owner of a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-C-2313, insured the ...
Dr.S.Agnes, M.D.,d.G.O.,mnams., Joseph Hospital Vs. S. Kumaresan and O ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 5.1.2011 and hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order: J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/First Opposite Party against the Order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.112/2003. 2. The respondents 1 and 2, as complainants had filed the complaint before the District Forum, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first opposite party for deficiency in service, in that, the first opposite party did not issue the discharge certificate and sterilization certificate and further the first opposite party demanded excessive room rent; and further praying for a direction to the second opposite party to settle the medi-claim policy by paying Rs.19,992/- to the complainants. 3. The case of the complainants is as follows: The second complainant is the wife of the first complainant. The second complainant was ...
V.Vaiyapuri and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.11927 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.90, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for 2007-2008 for promotion as Forest Ranger in the appropriate place therein and to promote him with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits.2. Writ Petition No.11928 of 2008 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D)No.89, Environment and Forests (FR.9B) Department, dated 17.4.2008, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for 2007-2008 for promotion as Forester in the appropriate place there...
T.Rajalakshmi and anr. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 4th respondent relieving the petitioners on their attaining the age of 58 years, with a consequent relief of directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the service till the academic year 2010-2011.3. The petitioners in these writ petitions were born on 05.06.1952 and 30.06.1952 respectively and therefore the date of their superannuation came to be 30.06.2010. The petitioners, before their retirement, made a representation to the State Government as per G.O.Ms.No.249, Education dated 09.02.1959 seeking re-employment till the end of the academic year. The G.O.Ms.No.249, Education dated 09.02.1959 stands reiterated in subsequent G.O.Ms.No.1643,...
M.inayadulla Vs. P.Palanisamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
J U D G M E N T1. Heard.2.This appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of 1994 dated 09.12.1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Erode.3. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed two suits before the Trial Court. O.S.No.43 of 1994 was filed for specific performance for executing a sale deed in accordance with the agreement dated 05.11.1992, failing which, the Court itself must execute the sale deed. He filed the second suit in O.S.No.117 of 1995 for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant or their men or agents from in any manner causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.4. Pending the suit, on behalf of the second defendant, the Court appointed a guardian since the second defendant was a minor. Both suits were tried together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 09.12.1998. However, the present appeal is filed only against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of...
A.V.Raju Vs. S.P.Mahaveer Big Bazaar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. This second appeal is filed by the obstructor, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Sub Court, Nilgiris, in A.S.No.28/10 confirming the order dated 27.4.10 passed by the District Munsif, Kothagiri, in E.A.No.79 of 1996 ordering removal of obstruction in E.P.No.127 of 1995 in O.S.No.617 of 1984, which was filed for recovery of possession and for cost.3. The germane and essential facts giving rise to the filing of the second appeal would run thus:(a) The deceased Phoolchand filed the suit O.S.No.617 of 1984 as against Lourdumaryammal, seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the property covered under the sale deed dated 14.12.1972 executed by one Aruldoss and his wife Lourdumary Ammal, in his favour, measuring an extent of 35 cents of land, and the house situated thereon bearing Door No.25/33 in Survey No.1064 of 1972. (b) The suit was decreed. Subsequently, E.P.No.127 of 1995 was filed for obtaining delivery of possession. Since there was obstruc...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »