Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
Aravindharaj Adhithan Vs. R.Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, in A.S.No.71 of 2008 confirming the judgement and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by the District Munsif, Chebngalpattu, in O.S.No.64 of 2006, which was filed for delivery of possession and damages.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"To pass judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff:a)directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the schedule mentioned property within a time to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. b) directing the defendant to pay damages for the period of his illegal occu...
Tag this Judgment!P.Mullairoja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Clerk in the 4th respondent Panchayat in 1997. The 4th respondent has framed certain charges against the petitioner and by the communications dated 05.03.2002 and 07.12.2002, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. The charges are relating to the construction of houses for the Scheduled Caste candidates at Pazhavalam and regarding the utilisation of funds, there was some irregularities committed, resulting that the beneficiaries have not been conferred with the benefits under the Scheme; that for putting up sodium lamps she has taken Rs.2,700/- payable to the Electricity Board; that she has collected excess amount of tax from the occupants, which was not shown in the accounts; that she has not brought on registers regarding the earlier motor starter and motor in the well; that she has committed misappropriation in not obtaining signature from the members of the Panchayat regarding the payment to be ma...
Tag this Judgment!HwashIn Automotive India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of service tax of Rs.48,90,540/- + education cess of Rs.97,811/- and penalties of Rs.49,88,351/- and Rs.100/- per day upto 17.4.2006 and Rs.200/- per day from 18.4.06 or 2% of the service tax and education cess and proceeded to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. The case of the department is that the assessees herein who are manufacturers of automotive parts and accessories and registered with the Service tax department as a recipient of service and paying service tax on erection, commissioning and installation and consulting engineers services, paid tax on the net value which was arrived at after deducting TDS from the gross value while the gross amount was to be adopted for the payment of service tax. We find that the assessees had contended throughout the proceedings that they had correctly paid service tax on the gross value of taxable service namely 5% of the net...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pachaimuthu Vs. Smt. P. Subbulakshmi
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the appellant/opposite party, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay the cost of repairs, to deliver the sale deed, Rs.1300/- per month towards water charges, alongwith compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order the appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in O.P.No.137/2003 dt.15.3.2007. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The opposite party published a booklet, announcing a housing scheme, and attracted by the same, the complainant had agreed to purchase house site No.13, and entrusted the construction work also to the opposite party, fixing total cost of Rs.450000/-. The site area was 1144 sq.ft., and building area agreed was 610 sq.ft. In addition to the above cost, for staircase and additional room, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.79000/-. The opposite party who had ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Executive Engineer/Administrative ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 issue the sale deed with regard to his flat, with compensation of Rs.25000/- alongwith 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.7.11.2007 in OP No.169/2004. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 24.12.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant/ respondent, had purchased a flat, F3 Type flat, first floor, constructed and sold by the opposite party, as per the allotment order dt.20.5.85, for the total cost of Rs.1,30,000/-. As per the order, the complainant should pay the initial de...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pachaimuthu Vs. T.V. Ravindran
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
The appellant as opposite party filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party for the cost for the repairs (rectification) of the defects prevailing on the building a sum of Rs.2 lakhs approximately; (the actual quantum can be as per the Commissioners report), to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the purchase of water, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,500/- 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.15.03.2007 in C.C.207/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal aims, to set aside the order of the District Forum, dated 15.03.2007 in OP.207/2003, wher...
Tag this Judgment!Rajakumar Bhagwatasaran Vs. the Collector of Chennai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent/District Collector, Chennai, bearing No.B3/8276/97, dated 26.11.2004, in and by which, the petitoner was directed to pay arrears of court fee to the tune of Rs.16,538/- in respect of O.S. Nos.4021 & 5170 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, and C.A. No.1802 of 1974 and C.S.No.127 of 1970 before the High Court, Madras, within 15 days from the date of the impugned order with a default clause that failure would result in further action under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (in short the 'Act') to recover the amount, and to quash the same.2. For better appreciation of the case, the backdrop in which the present petition came to be filed needs to be detailed below in brief:-It is the admitted case that the petitioner herein did not pay the court fees in the above referred cases before the City Civil Court and the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugadurai Vs. the Superintending Engineer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Lr. No.EE/O & M/VPD/DM/F.Agl.D1151/05, dated 16.04.2005, and to quash the same.2. The petitioner is the owner of an agricultural land to an extent of 5 acres near Seethapathi Nagar, Madhavaram, and in the said land, he has been cultivating flower plants, mango, coconut, fruit and green trees. He applied for Electricity Service Connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) in the year 2001 for irrigating the land with the Bore-well available in the land and he was given service connection vide Consumer No.66.16-236 with consumption units chargeable under Tariff No.V. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for change of 'Tariff Head' from Tariff No.V to Tariff No.IV as applicable to Agricultural Land, by enclosing necessary documents as required by the TNEB to prove that the land in question cultiv...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam and ors. Vs. Periyasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
J U D G E M E N T1. The Legal Representatives of the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant who lost in both the Courts are the appellants.2. 1st respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction and for damages. The case of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff was that the suit property and other properties originally belonged to one Panjan and his Pankalis and in the oral partition that took place 30 years before, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Panjan and the plaintiff is the brother's son of Panjan. According to the plaintiff/ 1st respondent, Panjan had a wife by name Thangammal and she is the only wife of Panjan and Panjan died 20 years leaving behind his widow Thangammal as his legal heir. As the plaintiff was the brother's son of Panjan, the plaintiff was brought up by Thangammal and she executed a document Ex.A3 dated 31.8.1976 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and therefore the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property a...
Tag this Judgment!Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
O R D E R1. Following are the allegations contained in the affidavit filed by the applicant/plaintiff along with the petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1999:- 1.(a) The applicant has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent company from in any manner infringing the applicant's registered trade mark and trading style 'APEX LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED' by using the offending trading style, 'Apex Formulations Private Limited' and also from in any manner passing off their pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the offending trading 'Apex Formulations Private Limited'. The respondent has filed the written statement in June 2010. Pending the trial of the suit, the respondent has also filed an application on 17.4.2004 before the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of its corporate name 'Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd.' under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 under Application No.100396...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »