Chennai Court February 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.
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Ammaa Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Heard both sides. 2. The original authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs.2,61,768/- along with interest relating to the period 01.08.04 to 31.03.06 and appropriated the amount paid in March, 2006 and October, 2006. He imposed penalty under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs. 1000 under Section 77 and a penalty of Rs. 2,61,768/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (However, he has not given any option to pay concessional penalty in terms of proviso to Section 78). The party filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the demand of service tax and interest. He set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act and also reduced the penalty to 25% of the amount imposed by the original authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3.1 Ld. SDR, draws my attention to the grounds of appeal and submits that the respondents have not paid the 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the date of issue ...
M/S. Geethanjaly Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 43/2004 TVL (ADK) dated 04.05.2004. 2. None appears for the appellants. However, there is a letter dated 11.08.10 seeking decision on the appeal on merits and to consider applicability of decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harish Silk Mills Vs. CCE, Surat - 2010 (255) ELT 393, wherein it has been held that option to pay concessional penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11 AC should be allowed when the entire duty involved stands paid before issue of show cause notice. 3. The appellant has admittedly defaulted in payment of duty for the first and second fortnight of May,2002 and the first fortnight of June, 2002 and the amount involved along with interest was subsequently paid on 30.07.02, 17.10.02 and 03.02.03. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 06.05.03 was issued proposing confirmation of duty which stood already paid and proposing imposition of penalty und...
M/S.Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Vs. Nbn Swamy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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.16,429.81 towards excess billing made and interest at 18% per annum from 9.9.2004 the date of receipt, till the date of payment, to pay Rs.4,705.04 being the amount charged towards Cassette Player/Stereo system along with interest at 18% per annum from 9.9.2004 till the date of payment 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.15.12.2008 in C.C.208/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of the respondent 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 compl...
S. Anitha Vs. Dr. D. Sulochana, M.B.B.S., D.G.O Gynecologist Sucharith ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
The Appellant as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents/opposite parties, praying for a direction to pay Rs.10 lakhs alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.7.2006 in COP No.76/2004. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 24.1.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant / appellant, being a married women, after conceivement, had consulted the 1st opposite party, from 23.2.2002, and in the course of the treatment, when the scan was taken in the 4th month, at the request of the 1st opposite party, in the 3rd opposite party scan centre, the complainant was informed, the baby is well developed, and the complainant has to be very careful, since...
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. P.N.Panneerselvam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagapattinam, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay Rs.4,30,649/- with interest at 12% till date of payment, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% till the date of payment and costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam dt.24.07.2007 in CC.No.49/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on appellants side, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The Complainant/Respondent filed complaint against appellant/opposite party claiming insurance amount of Rs.4,30,649/- towards...
M/S.Famous Blue Metals, Rep.by Its Sole Proprietor Mukhtar Vs. the Uni ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Dharmapuri @ Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,39,340/- with interest at 12% from the date of filing and costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Dharmapuri @ Krishnagiri dt.13.07.2007 in CC.No.49/2002. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant has filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for a sum of Rs.2,74,000/- towards loss caused to the machineries and for costs. 3. The opposite party stated...
S.Krishnakumar Vs. V.Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2008 rendered in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District cum Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, whereby the Suit filed for specific performance has been dismissed. 2.The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:2.1.An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 31.12.2005 for the purchase of a house property bearing Old No.33, corresponding to New No.24, situated in Chakravarthi Iyengar Street, East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059, Selaiyur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, with an extent of 2660 sq.ft. As per the said agreement, the sale consideration was fixed for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/-. A period of three months was fixed as the time for the execution of the sale deed. An advance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement entered into under Ex.A...
Mrs.Sharadha Shankar Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has applied for permission to hold a day-long fast on 20th February, 2011 in front of the police booth of Elliots Beach to show their concern about the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 and to raise awareness about the proposed elevated expressway connecting Nochikuppam to ECR near Kottivakkam and highlight the benefit and problems of the project. The proposed fast was between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. That proposal came to be rejected under the impugned order by the respondent Commissioner of Police dated 02.02.2011 stating that the venue is not an approved venue for holding fast. However, the impugned order states that she may be permitted to hold a day long fast in an approved venue, for which, she has to apply afresh.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that apart from any other things, the place which has been chosen by the petitioner as a venue for public gathering may not only litter the place and may be injurious to ...
E.Pradeep Prem Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner who is undergoing his post graduate M.S. degree course in Tirunelveli Medical College and Hospital, has sought for a direction upon the respondents to prescribe working hours, weekly off, leave including maternity leave, holidays, etc. for the post graduate degree students in medical colleges affiliated to the third respondent University.2. The case of the petitioner is that a candidate, who joins a post graduate programme in any one of the affiliated colleges of the third respondent University, is compelled to work for 24 hours on all 365 days and the third respondent University has failed to frame any regulation to regulate the working hours, and no provision has been made by the University as regards the leave entitlement and the University has totally ignored the relevance of reasonable working hours and need for rest for the students. It is further stated that the Medical Council of India has framed regulations ...
Dr. R. Porkodi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.9090 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.543, Health Department dated 8.10.1998. By the impugned order, the statutory Rules relating to appointment to the post of Reader in Rheumatology coming under the Director of Medical Education was amended. Even before the amendment, the 3rd respondent was posted temporarily as a Reader in Rheumatology in the Government General Hospital on 14.3.1997. The petitioner challenged the same by O.A.No.3446 of 1997. It is stated that the said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, during the pendency of the Original Application, the amendment came into force and therefore the petitioner contended that in the light of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the State Government could not have proceeded with the amendments. That Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act operates ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »