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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Chillies Export House Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.267/2010 dt. 20.7.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent is a manufacturer of “Oleoresin” and they are exporting the said product. They have utilized services of foreign based commission agents for getting export orders and made payment to the said foreign based firms. During the period from 16.6.2005 to 29.2.2008, they paid totally sum of Rs.25,62,777/- as commission. A show cause notice dt. 11.11.2008 was issued alleging that the respondents, as recipient of the services were required to pay service tax of Rs.3,10,446/- along with interest and that they are liable to penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Original authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs.3,10,446/- under Section 78 and Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. However, he refrained from imposing penal...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. S.M.S. Exp ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,37343/- with 24% interest p.a., alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.3000/-. 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.19.4.2007 in OP.No.74/2000. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 28.1.2011. 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, who suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, Tuticorin, in CC.No.74/2000, as per order dt.19.4.2007, is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ 1st respondent, who is carrying on export business, had consigned 1250 bags of Indian Pal...
G.Thangiah Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORDER1. These writ petitions are directed against the orders of the second respondent in P.R.Nos.30 and 35 of 1997 respectively, dated 26.6.2009, and also the orders of the first respondent/Government in G.O.(2D) No.262 and G.O.(2D) No.263 respectively, dated 26.6.2009 and also for a direction against the respondents to pay the terminal and retirement benefits due to the petitioners and to redraw the pension. 2.1. While the petitioner in W.P.No.21327 of 2009 has joined in the police department on 2.2.1963 and retired on 31.1.1998 as Head Constable, the petitioner in W.P.No.21328 of 2009 has joined the police department on 1.1.1963 and retired on 31.5.1996 as Grade I Police Constable. 2.2. One Durairaj was brought by the public to the Tirunelveli Town Police Station on 14.10.1984 with abrasions all over his body and it was informed by the public who have brought him to the station that he has stolen a bicycle of one Venkatraman and the members of the public chased him and attacked him c...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Kalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Salem dated 16.9.2002 passed in I.D.No.386 of 1998. While W.P.No.19483 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent before the Labour Court (management), W.P.No.28764 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court (workman).2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Labour Court.3.1. The petitioner, who is a B.E. Graduate in Mechanical Engineering joined in the services of the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division in the year 1985 as Assistant Engineer, in which post he was stated to be confirmed in the year 1986. He was issued a charge memo on 19.6.1993, for which he has submitted his explanation denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer appointed conducted enquiry and submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty. The charge being that he has left the work spot 40 minutes before the completion of duty hours. The ...
Binny Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent/Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 17.2.2005 and the consequential recovery notice issued by the third respondent dated 19.4.2007 and for a direction against the second respondent to hand-over vacant possession of the quarters, namely House No.6, Block No.'O', Venkateshwara Village, Chennai 600 012. 2.1. The petitioner, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, is stated to have ceased to function from 15.6.1996. The second respondent was working in the petitioner/company and he was occupying quarters, viz., House No.6, Block No.'O', Venkateshwara Village, Chennai 600 012, pursuant to the deed of licence dated 9.2.1981. As per the licence, the second respondent should deliver vacant possession of the house to the petitioner within the time prescribed in the notice of termination of licence. 2.2. The second respondent has reached the age of superannuation o...
S.Mani Vs. the Director General of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent/Director General of Police dated 12.5.2000 and for a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Sub Inspect of Police (Armed Reserve) from the date of his initial promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) and grant all service and monetary benefits to him. 2.1. The petitioner has joined in the District Armed Reserve, Chennai City as Police Constable on 13.9.1979 and was promoted as Head Constable on 15.5.1985. The petitioner was declared probation on 14.5.1987 and was promoted as Reserve Sub Inspector from 1.1.1998 temporarily. It was due to the non availability of the vacancies, he was reverted as Head Constable with effect from 16.6.1998. 2.2. The post of Sub Inspector of Police, Category-II is categorised in Class I, Category-II of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. As per the Rules, the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Category...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. G.V. Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.235/2010 dt. 24.6.2010. 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, the respondent paid the service tax along with interest before April 2007. Show-cause notice dt. 9.10.2007 was issued proposing confirmation of the service tax paid by them and proposing penalties under various Sections. Original authority vide order dt. 26.12.08, confirmed de...
Thilagarathinam Match Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirune ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. This an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.115/2010 dt. 31.3.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The officers visited the premises of the appellant on 28.12.2007 and inter alia found 9 duplicate invoices in one of the files and seized the same. Shri T.K.T.Thilagarathinam, who was looking after day-to-day management of the factory, admitted having removed consignments of man made safety matches under the cover of these duplicate invoices. It was followed up by payment of duty involved amounting to Rs.4,04,688/- on 29.12.07. The statement was corroborated by the statements of some of the dealers who have received the consignments under these duplicate invoices. The statements of Thilagarathinam and the dealer were not retracted. The show-cause notice dt. 26.6.08 was issued proposing confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty. Original authority vide order dt. 31.10.08 confirmed demand of Rs.4,04,688/- along with interest. He appropriated the amount of Rs.4,04,688/...
M/S.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras Division(South), Rep. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite party and praying to pay the matured amount of Rs.43,100/- with 24% interest, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) dt.3.10.2007 in CC.No.575/2005. After hearing the arguments of both parties, finally on 2.2.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Respondent/Complainant filed complaint against the opposite party for deficiency of service in settling LIC policy claim and claiming payment of Rs.43,100/- as maturity value of policy with 24% interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony an...
Easun Products of India (P) Ltd. Vs. the Chairman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner M/s. Easun Products of India (P) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash tender specification T-1599 being arbitrary and against public cause and also being not in conformity with reasonableness.2. The petitioner initially filed the writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent to amend the "Bid Qualifying Requirements" by amending clause 1.3.1 which provided that "the Consortium can be formed between bidders, manufacturer of cable, manufacturer of joints and terminations and contractor for erection of cable and accessories in any combination".3. Keeping in view of the settled law that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts to direct as to how the terms and conditions of the bid document, are required to be framed, an application to amend the writ petition is...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »