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.
Ms. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. Vs. Cc (Seaport-export), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. 2. The impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating Commissioner disallowing the request of the appellants to amend the impugned Shipping Bills for inclusion of Advance Licence Numbers which were inadvertently not recorded at the time of filing the same. 3. Shri V. Balasubramanian, Learned Advocate for the appellants states that the EPCG Licence Numbers have been recorded on the impugned shipping bills but due to inadvertence the related Advance Licence Numbers were not recorded. However, he states that the accompanying invoices, both the EPCG Licence Numbers as well as Advance Licence Numbers. Further, the Central Excise authorities have certified regarding the use of imported inputs namely A-356 Grade Aluminum Alloy in the exported consignments. 4. We have heard the Ld. SDR. 5. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner has disallowed the amendment and conversion of EPCG shipping bills into DEEC shipping bills after noting th...
M/S.The Professional Couriers, Rep.by Its Branch Manager and Others Vs ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
The 1stRespondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Dindigul, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay the lost cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rsw.1,45,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and cost of the complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Dindigul, dt.11.02.2008 in CC.No.22/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.02.2011, 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 :- COMMON ORDER A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL F.A. No.335/2008 : The 3rd opposite party is the appellant. F.A. No.308/2010 : The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants. ...
R. Karunkakaran Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner herein seeks a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore, and to recall the order made in M.P No.629 of 2009 dated 1.10.2010 in C.C.No.6 of 2008, in which, the trial court proceeded to take cognizance against him by arraying as A.3 based on the charge sheet filed by the respondent for the offence under Secs.120-b, 420, 468, 471 PC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and to quash the entire proceedings.2. The facts of the case which led to filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and others are as follows:One Gunasekar (A.2), is the proprietor of Appu Apparels Exports, dealing with export of readymade garments. One Muthukumarasamy (A.1), the petitioner herein (A.3) and one Selvaraj (A.4) were working as Superintendents of Customs and Central Excise ICD Coimbatore from 2001...
R.Alfred Wilson Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. The petitioner is one and the same person in both the writ petitions. The second writ petition (W.P.No.2318/2007) arose out of O.A.No.3626 of 2001 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2000, 12.12.2000 and 31.03.2001 and to set aside the same. That OA was admitted on 14.06.2001.2. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Chengai East District had filed a reply affidavit dated 15.02.2001.3. By the impugned order, the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Security was imposed with a penalty of Postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. On appeal by the petitioner, the said order was confirmed by the third respondent, Director General of Police.4. Even when the said OA was pending, the petitioner filed the second OA being O.A.No.4701 of 2000 seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Inspe...
The Management of Magus Customer Dialog Private Limited Vs. the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is an Employer covered by the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act (for short ESI Act). They have come forward to file the present writ petition, challenging the notice dated 15.4.08/23.4.08 issued by the respondent.2. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was directed to cover the conveyance charges paid to the employees for the purpose of calculating the contribution for the period from April 2005 to March 2006. The amount of contribution worked out to Rs.3,33,820/-. The petitioner was advised that if the amount is not covered for the purpose of contribution, further proceedings will be initiated for recovering the amount. Before the issuance of notice, the petitioner was advised by the Regional Office, ESI that an Insurance Inspector on verifying with the records found that a sum of Rs.30,76,627/- was paid during the year 2004-2005 and Rs.51,35,697/- was paid during 2005-2006 as salary conveyance. The petitioner was asked to explain as ...
The Commissioner Vs. R.Gandhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. The petitioner in all the four writ petitions is the Ambattur Municipality represented by its Commissioner. The petitioner Municipality in these four writ petitions challenges the order of 3rd respondent Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 22.8.2007 in P.G.A.Nos.7,6,4 and 5/2007 respectively confirming the order of the 4th respondent Controlling Authority dated 20.11.2006 in P.G.Nos.208,109,107 and 108 of 2005 respectively and seeks to set aside the same.2. In these writ petitions, notice was ordered on 07.01.2008. Pending the notice, no interim order was granted. Subsequently, the writ petitions were admitted on 11.11.2010 and the applications for interim order were rejected on the same day.3. While the first respondent in all the writ petitions is served and appeared through counsel, it is the second respondent who had filed a counter affidavit dated 22.07.2008 supporting the stand of the petitioner Municipality. The first respond...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thiru. Murugan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award of Rs.5,68,000/- in respect of an injury caused to a cleaner of a JCB vehicle, in MCOP.No.44 of 2004 on 19.04.2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate-judge) of Mettur, Salem District. 2.The claimant is a cleaner of a JCB vehicle. The accident is admitted. But the liability is questioned by the Insurance company on the ground that the JCB vehicle which is insured is not covered under the policy if there is over-turning of the vehicle. The main defence by the Insurance Company is that, since the injury took place due to the over-turning of the vehicle and thereby the injured person's leg was crushed and the policy does not specifically cover for over-turning and also does not cover for any other person other than the driver, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 3.Secondly, they would also mainly contend that the quantum of award gran...
E. Sathish Kumar and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in Cr. No.41/2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:The defacto-complainant is a Company represented by the second respondent, who is the General Manager. The Company is acquiring and developing properties and in the course of their business, they had purchased 17 acres 18 cents of land at Jameen Pallavaram Village , Tambaram from various persons. The Company is in possession and enjoyment of the land. Gorden Woodroff Limited was a Company (hereinafter referred to as GWL" )carrying on business of leather tanning and manufacture of leather goods till December 1994. The said Company became sick and the business was closed on the same year. The Company came out of the sickness and diversified its business to real estate. The Company was owning 109.39 acres of land at Jameen Palalvaram. They have al...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant by the Tribunal in respect of a mini door vehicle, in MCOP.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, Erode District. 2.According to the claimant, the claimant and two others were travelling in a mini door goods carrier vehicle. According to the F.I.R. filed, they were returning in the vehicle after the rice bags were delivered near Periyamariamman Koil. The Insurance Company would only contend that the vehicle which is a mini door goods carrier does not have any seating capacity for any passenger and only the driver can travel along with the vehicle and nobody else is permitted to travel as there is zero capacity in the vehicle. They are not eligible to travel in the vehicle even as the owner of the goods. But in this case as per the F.I.R. since they are returning back after the delivery of the goods, the passengers were...
The Commissioner Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is the Erode Municipality, represented by its Commissioner. They filed these 5 writ petitions, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in P.G.A.Nos.14 to 18 of 2000 and P.G.A.Nos.22 to 26 of 2000. The Appellate Authority, namely, the first respondent by his common order dated 21.01.2002 confirmed the order of the second respondent Controlling Authority made in various gratuity applications.2. The writ petitions were admitted on 23.06.2005. Pending the writ petitions, this Court granted an interim stay on the finding that the entire amount as awarded are in deposit with the second respondent.3. The only contention raised by the petitioner Municipality was that since the contesting respondents (R3) have been paid pension and DCRG, they are not eligible for any further amount separately as gratuity. Both the authorities R1 and R2 have committed error in computing the gratuity.4. The grounds raised by the petitioner in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »