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.
M/S. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc (Export), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have made 329 export shipments of Maize under Free Shipping Bills as they were unaware of duty drawback entitlement of the subject goods which was available at the All Industry Rate of 1% on FOB value. Under the impugned order, the request of the appellants for conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills has been rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner. Ld. Advocate states that in respect of a similar case, the appellants have been allowed such conversion vide the order of the Tribunal in the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CC, Visakhapatnam, F.No. 738 and 739/2010 dated 23.12.2009 in Appeal No. C/81 and 185/2009. 2. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri C. Dhanasekaran, who fairly agrees that the request of the appellants can be allowed in the light of the precedent decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal cited above. 3. Takin...
Cc (Air), Chennai Vs. M/S. Micro Village Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
Jyoti Balasundaram The adjudicating authority had granted refund of Rs.1,17,18,116/- to the assessees herein against which the Revenue went up in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the grounds of appeal of the Revenue have been drafted subsequent to review order and the grounds of appeal did not exist at that time and this shows that the review order has been mechanically issued without any application of mind. 2. The learned SDR has been able to satisfy us with reference to the note sheet that the grounds of appeal were very much available when the review order was passed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect. Therefore, the ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case against the Revenue is erroneous. Since no decision has been passed on merits of the refund to the assessees, we set aide the impugned order insofar as it relates to the present respondent and remit the ...
M/S. Intimate Fashions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. Shri S.Muthuvenkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have been denied credit of service tax paid by them on the commission given to foreign agents for the service of locating the buyers and find their requirement of the goods to enable the appellants to manufacture and export goods to such buyers thereby boosting exports. He further states that the appellants are a 100% EOU and as such are required to achieve a positive net foreign exchange earning. He also states that under the EXIM Policy in force, under para 6.9.1, net foreign exchange earning is calculated taking into account the commission under dispute. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jallandhar Vs. Ambika Overseas - 2010 (20) STR 514, wherein it has been held as follows:- “The canvassing and procuring orders are activities preceding removal of the goods by the manufacturers. Without the fi...
The Chief Manager State Bank of India Karur Branch and Another Vs. A.S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay disburse the monthly pension due to the complainant, alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- 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.10.02.2010 in OP.No.7/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 7.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal aims, at the instance of the opposite parties, in OP.No.7/2009, on the file of District Forum, Karur, to upset an order wherein a direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs.4868/-, with interest thereon, with compensation of Rs.3000/-, which is not the prayer in ...
The Senior Service Engineer M/S. Johnson Lifts Ltd. Vs. S. Gopalakrish ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of RS.25000/- towards compensation 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.27.3.2008 in CC. No.88/1999. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant, who is residing in Bharani Flats, was availing the lift service, provided by the opposite party, as per the understanding reached between themselves, with the Secretary of Bharani Apartment Association, in which the complainant is also...
Lakshmi Naryana Iti Rep. by Its Manager (Principal) and Another Vs. Go ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
The 1st Respondent/ complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the capitation fees, alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakh and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 separately in F.A.No.516/2007, and F.A.No.528/2007 praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.29.06.2007 in O.P.Nos.29/2000. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order: COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2, in OP.No.29/2000, on the file of District Forum, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, are the appellants in F.A.No.516/2007 and 528/2007, respectively. 2. The parties are referred as arrayed in th...
S.Shivashankar and anr. Vs. Sivabakkiam Muthusamy Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The defendants are the revision petitions. Originally, O.S.No.397 of 2008 was filed on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for declaration and for removal of the revision petitioners from the office of the Management of the plaintiff Trust and for directions. While the suit was pending before the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.131 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint stating that the suit was not filed by proper persons as per section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no leave was obtained and the Trust cannot maintain a suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was dismissed by order dated 5.8.2008. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Namakkal and re-numbered as O.S.No.142 of 2008 and after the suit was transferred, the respondent/plaintiff fil...
Tamil Nadu Advocates Association Vs. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Tamil Nadu Advocates Association registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, has filed the above suit against the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India, praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) Declaring that the press release dated 30.12.2010 (R.O.C.No. 1733 of 2010) issued by the first defendant, announcing election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 4.3.2011, is null and void; (ii) Declaring that the electoral rolls, published by the first defendant, in preparation for the election of members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, to be held on 4.3.2011, are null and void;(iii) For appointment of a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court to conduct the election of members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, right from the preparation of the electoral rolls upto the announcement of the successful candidates, within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (iv) For an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from proceedi...
M/S. Empee International Hotel and Resorts Ltd. Vs. the Joint Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a hotelier having unit at Anna Salai, Chennai, which is covered by the provisions of the ESI Act. They have come forward to challenge the order passed under Section 85(B) of the ESI Act levying damages for the delayed payment. In the impugned order, it is stated that while the petitioner has paid the contribution, there was an enormous delay and when notice was issued, the petitioner came up with a plea that they have paid the amount of contribution in four instalments for the year 1995-1996 and they have paid the contribution in ten instalments for the year 2003-2004. The defence taken by the petitioner was that as there was severe financial constraint as well as low occupancy in the hotel, they could not generate required funds and in essence they offered for waiver of damages on the plea of recession made by them. However, the ESI Corporation found that the delay was not few days or few weeks, but there was enormous delay of 2013 days in making the due ...
S.Ganesan Vs. the District Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 made in W.P.No.3134 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The facts of the present case lies in a narrow campus. The appellant was granted a licence to sell eatables and snacks and collect empty bottles in the bar attached to the IMFL retail vending shop No.4376, located at door No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium. It appears that the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.24170 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents therein from in any manner establishing a retail vending IMFL shop at first street, Kamatchi Colony, Tambaram Sanatorium. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2009, with a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to consider the representation submitted by the fourth respondent herein. According to the fourth respondent, the retail vending IMFL shop was w...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »