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.
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that service tax in respect of supply of labour service was levied with effect from 16.06.2005, the appellant is an individual and has supplied labour to only one unit, his business was on a very small scale and he was ignorant of the newly introduced legal provisions providing for imposition of service tax. However, when the departmental authorities pointed out the tax liability of the appellants, he promptly paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest well before the issue of Show Cause Notice. He further states that the original authority has not imposed any penalty under Section 76 and 77 invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 but has however imposed penalty equal to the service tax amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant appealed against the said order to the lower appellate authority but the said authorit...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Kilburn Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. This is a departmental appeal involving a petty amount of Rs. 10,916/- only. Considering the same, the appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 2. The Cross-objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed off....
M/S. Diesel Power System Rep. by Its Partner Subramaniam Vs. M/S. Stab ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
The 1st Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to repay Rs.82,000/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and 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.27.4.2007 in OP.No.47/1999. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 12.1.2011. 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. The 1st opposite party in O.P.No.47/1999, on the file of District Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent, in this appeal, as complainant, originally filed a case against the appellant alone, seeking a direction to replace the generator, purchased by them, on 6.11.1997, for Rs.82000/-, or ...
S. Sankar and Another Vs. K. Sridharan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
The complainant has filed before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to issue a detailed stamped receipts, to give corporation water tap connection, alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.7.2007 in CC.No.510/2007, and F.A.No.273/2009 is filed praying for a direction to enhance the compensation so granted. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.01.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, perusing the documents filed, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Trichy, in O.P.No.23/2006, the opposite party, and the complainant, have preferred the appeals F.A.No.510/...
C.Dasarathan Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the fourth respondent labour Court, dated 30.12.2005, made in C.C.P.No.18 of 2002, and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to compute and pay the money value of the performance award to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum.2. The petitioner had stated that he had joined in service, as a Grade D employee, under the respondents 1 to 3, on 14.5.1975. At the time of the filing of the claim petition on the file of the fourth respondent labour Court, he was holding the post of Assistant Officer (MTCE) (NE-9). His wife, D.Kamalavathi, was also employed in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, which was originally a Government of India undertaking. In the year 2000, due to the disinvestment, the Tata Company had taken control of the said Company. While so, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and his wife, d...
Thiru Vi.KA. Dr.Mu.VA. Educational Trust Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner Trust was initially registered on 21.1.1955 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the name and style of 'The High School Committee at Shenoy Nagar' and subsequent to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, it was re-registered as 'Shenoy Nagar Educational Society' on 23.2.1993, with Registration No.62/93. Thereafter, by the Trust Deed dated 25.2.1998, it was registered as a 'Trust' under the present name and style of 'Thiru Vi.Ka. and Dr.Mu.Va.Educational Trust', appointing one of the Trustees Dr.V.T.Arasu as the First Managing Trustee/Secretary.2. The petitioner is a lessee of the lands belonging to the first respondent/Corporation in R.S.No.21/3 part and 21/4 part etc. in Periakudal village in sub registration district of West Madras (Shenoy Nagar) under two separate lease deeds. Under the first lease deed, land lease was granted in respect of two blocks, named 'A', measuring an extent of 1.50 acres, and 'B', measuring a...
K.Chinnathambi Vs. S.Shanmugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The second defendant in O.S.No.241 of 1990 is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.2. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that the property belonged to his father, the third defendant in the suit, and he had kept the first defendant as his concubine and thereafter he executed a settlement deed dated 05.06.1978 in favour of the first defendant, who was his concubine and under the settlement deed the first defendant was entitled to enjoy the property and after her life time, the property must go to the plaintiff and the first defendant has no manner of right to execute the sale deed and the third defendant also did not have any right over the property and after the execution of settlement deed in favour of the first defendant and the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant have entered into an agreement of sale on 10.02.1990, whereby the first defendant agreed to sell the property to the second defe...
P.Palanisamy Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 29.12.2010, for the variation of the conditions of permit of the minibus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 0540, plying on the route Avarapalayam Pirivu to Tirupur Old Bus Stand.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for this Court passing an order directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 29.12.2010.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 29.12.2010, if it is in order, and...
Y.R.Dharmalingam and ors. Vs. Masiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Nilgris at Uthagamandalam modifying the judgment and decree in O.S.No.143 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.2. The appellants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the decreased first appellant, who was the defendant in the suit. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.143 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor for permanent injunction.4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-According to the plaintiff an extent of 57 cents in Survey No.251 of Yedappalli Village in Coonoor Taluk originally belonged to two branches of families. One branch headed by the plaintiff's father's father, Y.P.Bellie Gowder and the other headed by Nanthi Gowder. The two branches effected an oral partition of the said extent of 57 cents in to two halves. Each brach was...
S.Begum Vs. R.Praveen Kumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 02.06.2010 passed in A.S.No.204 of 2009 by the learned V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. in O.S.No.4005 of 2007. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following prayer:- To direct the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs;- To direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as future damages per month, from the date of plaint till the date of handing over vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff; - For permanent injunction r...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »