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.
V. Lakshmi Vs. the Special Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
:ORDER1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the relief of a writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.1656/A1/08 dated 11/10/2008 of the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and also resultantly, directing him to appoint the petitioner as "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi) Centre.2. Before dealing into the merits of the case, the factual back drop of the case is stated hereunder:According to the petitioner, the Government by means of G.O.Ms.No.186 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated 4/10/2007 has accorded sanction for creation of 3,168 mini centres in Tamil Nadu. The first respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, has issued the following guidelines in respect of appointment of "Mini Anganwadi Workers". They are as follows:a. The candidate should be a female and preference should be given to destitute widows & poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the rules in ...
M/S. Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. Shri K. Subash Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that they are manufacturing floor cleaning equipments / machines under collaboration agreement with M/s.American Auto Service, USA and M/s. Hako Werke GmbH, Germany and have also been using their brand names ‘ROOTS’ and ‘HAKO’. He states that some of the final products namely ‘Hakomatic E 43’, ‘Hamster’, ‘Flipper’ which are respectively scrubber drier, vacuum sweeper and manual operated mechanical sweeper bear the brand name of M/s. Hako Werke GmbH. The appellants are also using the combined brand name ‘ROOTS HAKO’ which the authority below has held to be the appellants own brand name. The learned counsel contends that the same comprises of two brand names of their collaborators and the same is used as per the agreement with both the collaborators named above. 3. The appellants have two...
Mariya Jeyakumar, (Contractor, Municipality Cycle Safety Stand), Vs. B ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
The Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to repay the Rs.1.50, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards severe mental depression, stress, strain, agony and physical sufferings caused by the appellant and to pay the 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.30.05.2007 in C.C.14/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant counsel and perused the documents, 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 had been to Nagercoil Municipality Cycle Safety Stand, on 22.11.2006, maintained by appellant/opposite party, in order to leave the cycle for safe custody, where the opposite party clai...
The Principal, Roots Montessori School Vs. Smt.A.Sreelatha
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
The Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.11,400/- as claimed in her letter dated 16.08.2004, to pay Rs.513/- as interest till 06.10.2004 and future interest till the date of settlement, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for inconvenience, agony and mental trauma caused by the opposite party 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.28.02.2006 in C.C.65/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels and perused the documents, written submission of the 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 in this appeal, who is ...
M.Kalaimathi Vs. Muthuselvi Ravikumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
O R D E R1. Challenging the order, dated 01.08.2008 made in E.O.P.No.310 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, this Civil Revision has been preferred.2. The petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 herein contested in the local body election for the post of President of Ambothi village panchayat, Avinashi Taluk within the Annur Panchayat Union. The first respondent herein was declared elected by the Election Officer, P.W.4. Challenging the same, subsequently, the petitioner herein filed the petition under Sections 258 and 259 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 r/w Rules 122 and 123 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, 1995.3. Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, Tmt.Muthuselvi Ravikumar was declared as winning candidate securing 496 votes, while the petitioner herein, according to the Election Officer, secured only 495 votes. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that ...
V.Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Mrs.Shobana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. Seeking to punish the respondent, who is the competent authority under The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 and the District Collector of Chennai on the allegation that she has disobeyed the order of the Court dated 13.04.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1976 of 2009 in C.C.No.11 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge under the " The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 [herein after referred to as "the Act"] ", the petitioner has come up with this contempt petition.2. The petitioner was doing the business under the name and style of Thirumuruga Finance at No.73, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai from 15.04.1995 onwards. During the course of business, the petitioner collected deposits from the public on the assurance to repay the same with interest, but he failed to do so. On a complaint made by a depositor, a criminal case was registered in Cr.No.158 of 1998 by the Inspector of Polic...
N.C. Alexander Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records in and connected with order in Original No.7056/08, dated 17.1.2008, passed by the 5th respondent herein, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the goods provisionally in terms of section 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Customs Valuation Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules 2007 in respect of the imported goods (Appeals) covered under the Bill of Entry No.643484,dated 10.1.2008 on the basis of the contract price entered into with the overseas supplier.2. The petitioner imported fresh apples from USA under a contract dated 31.8.2007. Goods were imported under several bills of entry. In respect of one bill of entry viz., Bill No.643484, the Assistant Commissioner, Gr.I, passed an order in Original dated 17.1.2008 rejecting the price declared, which is based on the contract dated 31.8.2007 referred t...
E.Sivanesan Vs. Satharia Ahle Sunnath Jamath Mosque
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This second appeal is focussed by the original defendant, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 03.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.620 of 2008 by the learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.667 of 2007. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:(a) For ejectment directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the said portion more fully described in the schedule here under to the plaintiff; (b) For the said sum of Rs.43,000/- being the arrears of rent;(c) Damages for wrongful use and occupation of the said property at the rate of Rs.900/- from the date of plaint till the date ...
The Residents of Karaimedu North Street and Vennaraiyankulam Street Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
O R D E R1. This Revision has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed by the District Munsif, Sirkali dated 22.01.2009 in I.A.No.681 of 2008 in O.S.No.61 of 2004.2. The petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkali. It is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to channel pipeline (fz;zp) of the suit property. The case was taken up for trial and at the part heard stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint to include the prayer for mandatory injunction and include the pleadings therefor. 3(a) The following are the allegations contained in the affidavit: The channel is situated in Old Survey No.130/6B New Survey No.130/6B2. The first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, for mandatory injunction for restoring the pipeline stating that the said pipeline is in his patta land in New...
M/S. Eid Parry Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ltu, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. For the reasons recorded below, we waive the requirement of predeposit and proceed to decide the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides. 2. The original authority has allowed cenvat credit in respect of the impugned steel items such as MS Sheets, MS Angles, MS Plates, MS Channels, MS Flats, Beams, Joining Sheets, HR Coils, Squares, Round bars, Steel Tubes etc., falling under Chapter 72 on the ground that these were inputs for capital goods. On an appeal by the department, the lower appellate authority has set aside the order of the original authority relying on the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. - LB). 3. Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the impugned items have been used for manufacture of machinery parts and components and hence the appellants are eligible for ce...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »