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.
Masoom Ali (S.No.619009-g) Vs. Union of India Rep by Its Secretary and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The case before the Tribunal is a transferred case from the Honble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad bearing Writ Petition No.11219 of 2003 pertaining to a retired (then serving) Junior Warrant Officer (JWO) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) against the impugned order of denying extension of service to the petitioner for three years, from July, 2003 to July, 2006 as unjust. On transfer to the Chennai Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, in accordance with Section 34 (2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the same has been re-numbered as TA No.153/2010. 2. The short facts of the petition to the affidavit sans irrelevant particulars are set out as follows: 2(a) The petitioners request for extension of service for three years from 01.08.2003 to 31.07.2006 was rejected by the respondents. Enrolled in the IAF as Airman on 27.07.1974 as Mechanical Transport Driver, the petitioner had rendered 29 y...
Kasturi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Union of India Rep. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is for declaration to declare the Circular dated 7.10.2005 issued by the second respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs as ultra vires section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 read with sections 37B and 65(19) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India insofar it relates to the petitioner.2. The petitioner which is engaged in the business of publishing newspapers and periodicals had entered into a contract on 31.10.2000 with CCI Europe A/S Denmark for the supply of software for pagination system. That apart, an agreement for maintenance of software was also entered, by which the petitioner paid DKK 2,209,690 equivalent to Indian Rupees 1.66 crores (approximately). (a) The second respondent issued a circular on 17.12.2003 to the effect that the software service would be outside the purview of service tax and it is also stipulated in section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 that it does not...
M/S.Manas Auto Copier Machine Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
R.Krishnaveni Vs. Govindarajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. O.S.A.No.269 of 2010 arises against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in O.A. No. 197 of 2010 in C.S.No.185 of 2010. The plaintiff, who was the applicant in the application, is the appellant. The respondents were the defendants in the suit and the respondents in the application. The appellant filed O.A.No.197 of 2010 for interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with or by altering the suit property pending disposal of the suit.2. O.S.A.No.270 of 2010 arises against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in A.No.1196 of 2010 in C.S.No.185 of 2010. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit and the first respondent in the application. The first respondent was the first defendant in the suit and the applicant in the application. The second respondent was the second defendant in the suit and the second respondent in the application The first respondent/applicant filed application in O.A. No.1196 of 2010 to vacate the order of ad-interim inj...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. A.R.K. Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing assessee’s claim for refund of Rs.1,16,629/-. 2.I have heard both sides The lower appellate authority has considered documents establishing despatch of fabrics to M/s.Pasupathy Fabrics vide their procurement certificate and letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise enclosing copies of Annexure-A issued by M/s.Pasupathy Fabrics and the copies of Annexure-A for despatch of goods to M/s.Pasupathy Fabrics to hold that there is proof for despatch of the goods to the exporters and therefore claim of refund is admissible. He has directed the adjudicating authority to peruse the documents and sanction refund accordingly. The stand of the Revenue is that with the amendment to Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power of remand. However, I find that verification by the adjudicating authority of the documents is required and hence remit the case to th...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 505/2010 dated 27.10.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent claims to have paid excess service tax adopting 12% rate during the period July,2005 to March, 2006, when the rate of tax was only 10%. The excess paid amount amounting to Rs. 1,76,083/- stands adjusted by them while paying service tax for the month of August, 2006. The original authority held that the said adjustment is not covered under Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules. It was also held that Rule 6 (4A) which permitted adjustment of excess payment towards subsequent tax liability was introduced only with effect from 1.3.07. On those grounds, she confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,76,083/- along with interest and imposed penalties under Section 76 and 77. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (A) set aside the order relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ne...
M/S. Itc Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Heard both sides. 2. The original authority rejected the claim of refund of service tax paid on the export services claimed by the appellants, in terms of Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, on the ground that part of the claim was not substantiated with relevant documents and part of the claim has been filed after the period six months prescribed for claiming the refund in terms of the said Notification. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (A) has remanded the matter to reconsider the claim relating to that part of the claim which was rejected for want of documents giving an opportunity to the appellants to produce the documents before the original authority. The Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the original authority rejecting refund of Rs.30,070/- as time barred. 3. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the time limit for preferring refund claim prescribed under Notification No.41/07 dated 06.10.07, has since been enlarged by Notificatio...
The Secretary, Arumanallur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank and A ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
The first Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties to pay Rs.57,042/- towards FDR with interest, to pay Rs.1 lakhs for compensation towards mental agony and with 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.16.09.2005 in C.C.20/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and first respondent counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of the first respondent, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagercoil, in OP.20/2005, wherein, as per the order dated 16.09.2005, certain directions were given, challenges the same in this appeal. 2. The first complainant [hereafter call...
The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Vs. M.A. Ramachandran and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
The first Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the second opposite party, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.01.2009 in C.C.99/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and second respondent 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. The second opposite party is the appellant. 2. Claim of the complainant: The complainant/first respondent, who was employed by M/s.S.Nallaperumal and Sons, Nagercoil, during his service, paid contribution towards Provident Fund regularly. After his retirement, claiming the refund of the contribution, he had addressed the first opposite party and finally he rea...
R.Dison and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.4072 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue allotment order pursuant to the confirmation of auction dated 30.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner forthwith for shop Nos.10, 11, 13 in "C" Block of the shopping complex constructed by the Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat.2. Writ Petition No.4073 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue allotment order pursuant to the confirmation of auction dated 30.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner forthwith for shop No.12 in "C" Block of the shopping complex constructed by the Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat.3. The relief sought for in both writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, both writ petitions are taken up together.4. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »