Chennai Court March 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.
Makkal Sakthi Katchi and ors. Vs. the Election Commission of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
O R D E R1. The Honble The Chief Justice Since, in these writ petitions common relief had been sought for, they have been heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The common relief sought for in these writ petitions is for issuance of a direction to the first respondent Election Commission of India to re-schedule the General Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu from 13.04.2011 to some other day taking into consideration, more particularly, the welfare of the students, whose annual examinations are scheduled during that period.3. It appears that the Election Commission of India by notification dated 1.3.2011 announced the date for the General Election to the Legislative Assembly of the Tamil Nadu and the date for the General Election had been fixed on 13.04.2011. It is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu has already scheduled the Higher Secondary Examinations (XII Standard) 2011 from 02.03.2011 to 25.03.2011, and thereafter, scheduled the SSLC Examination (...
M/S. Sierra Trading (P) Ltd. M/S. G.A. Jolli Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have imported shoe soles free of duty under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. dated 1.4.97 for the purpose of job work and they have exported shoes after satisfying the prescribed value addition of 10%. They have claimed drawback on some of the Shipping Bills and DEPB benefit on some others which has been allowed by the customs authorities after satisfying themselves that the export value does not include the value of exempted soles received under Notification No. 32/97. He states that subsequently the authorities below have sought to deny exemption under Notification 32/97 leading to the impugned demand and the present proceeding. He states that the appellants have not claimed drawback and DEPB benefit in respect of the same consignment and they have not claimed such benefits on the value of the material in respect of which exemption has been...
M/S. Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute is whether suction couch role shell with accessories is eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 156/1986-Cus. dated 1.3.1986 which covers paper making machinery and component parts thereof of Chapter Heading 84.39. The shell is nothing but housing for the pouch roll and is therefore an identifiable part of the paper making machinery. The accessories are rubber tubes which form part of the roll and since the notification does not cover accessories, the rubber tubes will not get the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 40% in terms of the notification above mentioned. We are informed that the value of the rubber tubes would be approximately 20% of the total value of the goods imported. We, therefore, hold that the benefit of the notification is available to 80% of the value of the goods imported namely the suction roll shell only. The appeal is therefore partly allowed in the above terms....
T.Mathiazhagan Vs. the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to execute the Sale Deed in respect of complainants Plot No.M.I.G.No.789 in Perumalpattu Village without collecting any money from the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the compensation for mental agony, physical strain and stress and for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and cost of the complaint. 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, Chennai (South), dated 15.07.2008 in CC.No.484/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both side, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- TMT. VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER ...
P.T.R. Palanivelrajan [Deceased] and Others Vs. British Airways, Rep. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
The appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for mental agony for each at Rs.5 lakhs, to pay Rs.4 lakhs as damages for causing inconvenience in attending the marriage of the complainants son at New York, to pay Rs.6 lakhs for difference in air fares and other amenities due to the change of first class to club as per the schedule flight chares and other actual inconvenience, totaling Rs.20 lakhs. 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.11.08.2008 in C.C.249/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDEN...
K.Sivasankaran Vs. M/S.Mettur Gas Service
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Salem alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay R.1,82,555/- and a suitable compensation for the injury inflicted and cost of the complaint. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Salem, dated 20.12.2007 in CC.No.74/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both 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. The Complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,82,555/- as compensation for deficiency of service for refusin...
Ex- Sepoy M Sundaram Vs. the Chief Record Officer for Oic Records
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The case pertains to a septuagenarian applicant, an ex-sepoyfrom The Madras Regiment, who, by way of Original Application No.25/2010, has approached the Tribunal seeking relief of Disability Pension and for setting aside the impugned order of the respondent denying him the same. 2. The short facts of the application, sans irrelevant particulars, are as follows: 2(a) The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 26.06.1958 and discharged on 29.10.1963 after a service of 5 years and 4 months. He was discharged under Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) as medically unfit. The applicant would stress on the fact that such a medical discharge, as per Army Rule 13 (3) III (iii) would be required to be carried out only on the recommendation of an Invaliding Medical Board (IMB). The applicant would say that he was 100 per cent fit when he was enrolled and was also ready to serve in alternate duties but was invalided out for reasons of b...
M/S.Krishna Trading Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
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...
Cethar Vessals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The applications for condonation of delay in filing Appeal Nos.E/23/11 to E/27/11 are allowed as one appeal each was filed against two impugned orders within the statutory period of limitation and the 2011 appeals are only in the nature of supplementary appeals filed for the reason that an appeal is required to be filed against each Order-in-Original. 2. Now, we take up the appeals for disposal. The assessees who are manufacturers of boilers, boiler components, auxiliary boilers etc. cleared electric fans claiming classification under CET sub-heading 8414.40. The department was of the view that since there was no electric motor attached to the fans (electric motors are an indispensable part/main part for the operation of fans), the goods cleared were only parts of electric fans and hence classifiable under CET sub-heading 8414.99 attracting duty @ 15% while complete fans attract duty @ 10%. Show-cause notices proposing recovery of duty and re-classification we...
Nectar Prints Private Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The above appeals have been coming up for hearing from time to time and have been adjourned more than once at the request of learned counsel for the assessees. Although there is a request for adjournment of today’s hearing on the ground of ill-health, we find no reason to keep the appeal pending any further as the cases have already been adjourned at the request of assessee’s counsel. It, therefore, appears that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the case. The appeals are therefore dismissed for non-prosecution....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »