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.
M/S.Vinay Auto Copier Machine Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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...
M.Karuppusamy Vs. S.Karunaiyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2006 in O.S.No.74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The first defendant and his four brothers are the owners owning ancestral properties as well as the properties jointly purchased by them. There had been no partition among them so far as these properties are concerned. Therefore, the first defendant is entitled to own 1/5 share in all the suit properties mainly comprising house-sites, vacant-sites and building. (b) The first defendant has got only son, by name K.K.Viswanathan and they are living together as a member of the joint Hindu family. The first defendant being the Kartha-Manager of the said family, was managing the business in the name and style of Narmada Fabrics. His son Viswanathan was a member of a political party. (c) The first defendant sustained considerable loss in the textile business. H...
N.C.Alexander Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a trading in fruits by importing them from various countries, including the United States of America. He also does business in local sales in fruits. He has been importing apples from the United States of America for the past seven years, on the basis of the contracts entered into with the suppliers. Almost all the imports of the apples had been made through Chennai Seaport in specially refrigerated containers, as the goods are highly perishable in nature. The goods had been duly assessed and cleared by the customs and the port authorities, on payment of the appropriate duty. For the purpose of carrying on the business, by importing fruits, the petitioner has been allotted the Importer Exporter Code No.0403001013, by the office of the Zonal JDGFT, Chennai.2. It has been further stated that the petitioner is also assessed to income tax. The import of apples, especially, from the United States of America, has been on the basis of the contract entered into wi...
S.Rasool Mohideen Vs. M/S.Bashyam Reddy and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
O R D E R1. This Revision has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.04.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District Judge, Chingleput) in I.A.No.25/99 in M.C.O.P.No.348/95.2. The claimant is the petitioner and the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer. The petitioner filed M.C.O.P.No.234 of 1990, under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him, on account of a motor vehicle accident on 12.11.1989, at about 6.30 p.m. on G.S.T. Road at Erattaimalai, Acharapakkam. On account of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries, namely, shortening of right leg, abrasion over the forehead, laceration on the right side of the cheek, shortening of right limb and several other lacerations all over the body. On a...
Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Ioc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Heard both sides on the petition seeking stay of the order of Commissioner (A) by which order of original authority rejection the refund claim of the applicants has been set aside. Considering the nature of the dispute, the question of granting stay as claimed by the department does not arise and the appeal itself is taken for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 166/2010 dated 15.09.2020, by which the order of the original authority passed in denovo proceedings rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 8,40,752/- pertaining to the period March, 06 to February, 2007, was set aside. 3. The relevant dates and events deserve to be recorded in detail. They are as follows:- a) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as IOCL), the present respondent and M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. (hereinafter IBP) were holding company and subsidiary company respectively. b) A proposal was mooted for merging IBP, the subs...
M/S. Paradigm International Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Appeal No. ST/698/2010 is by M/s. Paradigm International against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 171/ 2010 dated 16.09.2010, challenging the penalty under Section 78, which was limited to 25% of the entire service tax amount involved. Appeal No. ST/709/2010 is by the department against the very same order challenging reduction of penalty from Rs.3,14,842/- to 25% of the said amount by the Commissioner (A) and against setting aside the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of textile made-ups and they are exporting the said goods to various countries. They have utilized the services of oversees agents for the purpose of procuring orders for export of goods and for ensuring repatriation of sale proceeds of exported goods. In that connection, they paid commission to the said agents. When the appellants were informed that as recipient of services, they were liable to pay service tax, they paid t...
M/S. Tvs Interconnect Systems Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (A) No. 13/2010 dated 28.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant is a registered service provider. They have under taken certain services to M/s. AEGIS CRM Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the party). It is claimed that by mistake they have raised four invoices claiming service charges from the said party and also paid applicable service tax on the amount for which invoices have been raised. Later on, it appeared that the work was not undertaken by the appellant but by some other party. As a result, the party did not honour the bills including the service tax amount. Refund of Rs. 2,47,422/- which was claimed by the appellants was accordingly rejected by the original authority. The original authority has rejected the entire claim on the ground of bar of unjust enrichment. She has also held that part of the amount amounting to Rs.1, 05,222/- as barred by limitation. 4. The Ld. Advocate f...
Special Officer, Trichy District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Another ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Trichy, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to issue loan clearance certificate under One Time Settlement Scheme announcement by 2nd opposite party on 10.5.02 for SRTO loan of Rs.2,18,000/- on 2.3.94, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Trichy, dt.14.11.07 in CC.No.88/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.02.2011, 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 :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a ...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Mrs.L.Prema a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (North), alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- towards the value of 450 kgs Toflon net cloth and labour charges, and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the 1st opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North), dated 25.01.2008 in CC.No.79/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.02.2011, 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 :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/1st respondent filed a complaint against the appellant and the 2nd opposite party for payment of Rs...
V. Madhava Reddy Vs. the Ministry of Defence, Rep. by Its Under Secret ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who after serving in the Indian Air Force as Airman for nearly 12 years was boarded out from service on medical grounds on 16.06.1994 and was denied his disability pension on the ground that the invaliding diseases viz. Schizophrenia (295 V 6) and Hypertension (401, V 6) were neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as per the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board (AFMSF-16), had knocked at the doors of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.24815 of 2001 challenging the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board AFMSF-16, and praying grant of disability pension. After the constitution of the Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and renumbered as T.A.No.196 of 2010. 2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition sans irrelevant particulars as narrated in the affid...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›