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.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. R. Prakash and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
The first Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lakhs as damages for mental agony, hardships, torture and physical pain suffered by the complainant with 18% interest per annum. 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.25.06.2007 in C.C.358/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and first 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 3rd opposite party in OP.358/2003, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, unable to digest the order of the District Forum, wherein, a direction has been given to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- has challenged the same in this appeal. 2. The compl...
P. Sivakumar Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the amount, as per the order of the District Forum dt.21.11.2007 in C.C.83/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either 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 complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant, who aspired to became a Sub-Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service, intended to submit an application in the month of August 2006, approached the opposite party to get a Demand Draft of Rs.250/-, which was essential to be attached with the application form. The opposite ...
The Manager, Citi Bank N.A., Card Member Services Vs. S.L. Chitale and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
The First Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the renewal amount, to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for deficiency of service either jointly or severely for the loss, mental agony and insult 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.30.10.2007 in C.C.219/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the eoither counsel 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 first opposite party, who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.219/2003, dated 30.10.2007, is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent having the f...
B.C.Raman and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the penalty imposed for the alleged illicit quarrying.2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.6042 of 2003, is the owner of patta land measuring 80 cents in survey No.464/1 and 20 cents in survey No.905/1 in Nagojanahalli village, Krishnagiri taluk, Dharmapuri District, which contains gray granite deposit. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.960, Industries Department dated 16.8.1994, reserved the entire gray granite deposited areas of Dharmapuri District including those in patta lands for exploitation by the State owned Corporation, viz., Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited. Challenging the said Government Order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6154 of 1989 and there was an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner up to 12.10.1990. On that date, the Division Bench, while dismissing the writ petition, upheld the validity of the G.O. in a batch of writ petitions. (a) It is stated that some of the aggrieved persons approached the Supreme Cou...
Lakshmana Boyan Vs. the Assistant Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.3884 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to order dated 8.2.2011 passed in Ka.No.Assistant Engineer/Nallur/Dvn.Indl./Ka.No.267 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give Electricity Service Connection to the house in S.F.No.155, Site No.29, Jai Nagar, Boyar Colony, Nallur, Tiruppur-6, Tiruppur District on receipt of the application for electricity service connection from the petitioner.2. Writ Petition No.3885 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to order dated 8.2.2011 passed in Ka.No.Assistant Engineer/Nallur/Dvn.Indl./Ka.No.268 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give Electricity Service Connection to the house in S.F.No.150, Site No.7, Valliammai Nagar, 6th Street, Nallur, Tiruppur-6, Tiruppur District on receipt of the...
P.Murugesan Vs. Arukutty Gounder @ Arumugha Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007 in O.S.No.172 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions CourtFast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Thiruppur.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The suit property belongs to first defendant. First defendant executed a Power of Attorney in favour of second defendant, empowering him to deal with the property. Second defendant as Power of Attorney of first defendant, entered into a sale agreement dated 9.9.2005 for Rs.4,54,400/- and received advance of Rs.1 lakh; three months' time was stipulated for execution of the sale deed. (b) The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff requested second defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. Second defendant represented that the parent document of the suit property is mortgaged with the Bank while availing of the loan and he assured to execute the sale de...
M.Ramesh Jain.and anr. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to remove the lock and seal put up by them on 24.12.2010 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act with regard to constructions put up at No.34, Duraisamy Pillai Street, Gandhi Road, West Tambaram, Chennai-600045 to enable the petitioners to carryout the rectification in the constructions.2. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioners state that their property has been locked and sealed by the second respondent for admitted violation. The present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to remove the lock and seal put up on 24.12.2010 so as to enable the petitioners to carry out the rectification in the construction, which according to the second respond...
S.K.Sengoda Gounder and anr. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take immediate action as per Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in pursuance of the respective petitioners' representations dated 4.9.2008 and further reminders dated 24.9.2010 and issue order in accordance with law.2. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions.3. The relief sought for in all the writ petitions are one and the same. By consent of both parties, all the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal.4. Respective petitioners claim to be the owners of the land which has been acquired by the third respondent for widening and construction of four way lanning in bye-passes of NH-47. Award has been passed. Petitioners received the award amount under protest. Petitioners made representations dated 4.9.2008 for enhanced amount of compensation. Since no action has been tak...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Manohara Saraswati ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. The brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of intelligence gathered, the officers of Directorate General of Anti-Evasion searched the factory and office premises of M/s.Jayadevi Industries, M/s.Manohara Saraswathi Glass Works, M/s.Mahashree Aruna Chemicals and M/s.Sowbagyalakshmi Silicates. Verification of seized records revealed that the quantity of Sodium Silicate manufactured was disproportionate to the quantity of Soda Ash consumed and, therefore, show-cause notices were issued to each of the four above mentioned units, proposing recovery of differential duty and proposing penal action. The demands were confirmed and penalties imposed by the Commissioner vide Orders-in-Original No.4 to 7/95 dt. 21.2.95 as per details herein below:- S.No.Name of the factoryDuty demanded Rs.Penalty imposed Rs.1.M/s.Jayadevi Industries3,87,112.4475,000/-2.M/s.Manohara Saraswathi Glass Works6,27,677.0975,000/-3.M/s.Mahashree Aruna Chemicals4,36,678.5650,000/-4.M/s.Sowbagyalakshmi Silicates7,...
Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. In this case, MODVAT credit of Rs.8,01,826/- was taken in excess on capital goods by the assessees. They reversed the excess credit on being pointed to them. Show cause notice was issued proposing appropriation of the amount reversed and also proposing recovery of interest and imposition of penalty. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand and appropriated and adjusted the reversal of the amount of excess credit, demanded interest and also imposed penalty of amount equal to the credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal by the assessees. 3. I have heard both sides and find that in the case of CCE Delhi Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2007 (214) ELT 173 (PandH)], the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when inadmissible credit although taken was not utilized, the assessee was not liable to pay interest. The decision of the High Court has been upheld by the apex court as seen from 2007 (214) ELT A50 (SC)...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »