Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
S. Raja Sundar Vs. the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
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 Rs.15,000/- and Rs.230/- with interest from the date of application till the date of realization and to give a latest copy of tariff schedule for all services, fees and procedure of the bank. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the order of the District Forum dt.25.08.2008 in C.C.49/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant in person, and perused the documents, Written Submission of the appellant 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 is having account in the Syndicate Bank, Mettupalayam, bearing Account No.61282200008616, which Bank is centralize...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ragavendra Traders, Rep. by Its Partner A.Venkatachalam Vs. the Co ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Salem, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay the deposit amount of Rs.3,27,700/- together with interest from the date of deposits and award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and award costs 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 8.3.2007 in COP. No.3/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on appellants 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. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking the relief to pay the deposit amo...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gangadharan Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. An erstwhile Sepoy of the Indian Army, who has been denied his disability pension by the 2nd respondent under the impugned letter No.2573979/RSME/98/PG-4 dated 6th July 1998, has approached this Tribunal for disability pension from the date of his discharge ie., on 01.03.1993. 2. According to the applicant, he joined as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on 07.02.1975 and while in military service he met with an accident and had fractured of his little finger leading to partial disability. According to the Release Medical Board, dated 13th November 1992, the disability was diagnosed as Fracture Proximal Phalanx, Little Finger RT (Optd) 816 The surgery took place at Sainik Military Hospital at Secunderabad. The applicant was sanctioned temporary disability pension for the period of five years and the 2nd respondent in his letter No.2573979/RSMB/93/PG-4, dated 7th January 1998, had asked the applicant to appear before the Re-Survey Medical B...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. MODVAT credit of Rs.43,153/- has been denied on the ground that the invoices, on the strength of which credit was taken, did not satisfy the conditions of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the reason that :- (a) the invoices were not in proper format; (b) rate of duty was not shown in the invoices; (c) value shown in the invoices did not tally with the amount of duty; (d) assessable value was not mentioned in the invoices; and (e) the invoices did not mention the time of despatch. 2) We have heard both sides and perused Invoice No.407 which is one of the relevant invoices, as well as some of other relevant invoices, and find that all material particulars are mentioned therein, that the inputs had suffered duty, and had been received by the assessees and used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. This being so, non-mention of some minor particulars cannot disentitle the assessee to the benefit of MODVAT credit. We, therefore, hold that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Microqual Techno Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. 2. The issue in dispute in this case is whether the impugned goods namely “co-axial cables” imported by the respondents are entitled to duty exemption under Sl.No. 28 of the Customs Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. The original authority in his order dated 24.07.2006 has denied the exemption classifying the impugned goods under sub-heading 8544.20. The lower appellate authority under his order dated 31.03.09 has allowed the exemption leading to this appeal by the department. 3. Ms. Indira Sisupal, Ld. DR appearing for the department supports the grounds of appeal and contends as under: (a)The operating words in the opening paragraph of the notification No. 25/2005-Cus. Dt 01.03.2005, which outline the scope and coverage of the exemption, are as under: “hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and falling within the heading, sub-heading or tariff item of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Footwear Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessees M/s.Premier Footwear Products (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PFP), who are manufacturers of “Micro-cellular Rubber Sole sheets” for Hawaii chappals and “Strap sheets (plap)” for straps of Hawaii chappals had not paid excise duty on the above products manufactured in their factory at Pollachi and removed to their customers during the period 15.12.1998 to 31.3.2003 and hence a show-cause notice dt.12.12.03 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty on rubber sole sheets classifiable under CET sub-heading 4016.19 and on strap sheets classifiable under CET sub-heading 4008.29. The notice also proposed levy of interest and penal action on the assessees as well as on M/s.Kerala Footwear Products (hereinafter referred to as KFP) who supplied rubber compound mix required for the manufacture of both sole sheets as well as the strap plaps, and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Shivram, Bhuvana Shivram Vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Rep. by I ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.26,322.56 being 2.5% as per payment charges, received in excess from the complainants, to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and harassments and to bear the cost of the proceedings. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainants, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South), dated 6.2.2008 in CC. No.271/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANN...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakumar Vs. Asst. Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Panruti and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Cuddalore alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,048/- collected as power factor charges for the month of October 2003, which was later adjusted towards CC arrears during 2003 December month E.B. charges of Rs.6160/- (ii) to refund of excess amount Rs.6160/- collected from the complainant in December 2003 over and above the charges for consumed units and for (iii) to declare the claim of Rs.10,807/- by opposite party is ultra virus and for damages of Rs.10,000/- and for cost of Rs.5,000/-. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to enhance the order of the District Forum, Cuddalore, dated 21.05.07 in COP. No.85/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, wri...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintending Engineer (Electricity) Tamilnadu Electricity Board ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20/- towards extra charges collected towards electricity, alongwith compensation of Rs.15000/- and 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.28.02.2008 in OP.No.74/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011. 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to this appeal The complainant/respondent, is the owner of service connections V466 and 201, for which he was paying the consumption charges regularly, without any default. On 19.2.2006, the opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subalakshmi Vs. Union of India Rep by Its Secretary and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A septuagenarian, poor widow of late Havildar V.Ramasamy who had served in the Army for nearly 21 years and after his retirement joined in civil service as a Night Guard in PWD Department who was discharged from the said re-employment on 01.11.1970, subsequently breathed his last on 26.02.1986, has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the Fourth Respondent dated 21.08.2009 under which the claim for Second Family Pension was rejected. 2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicants husband late Havildar V.Ramasamy after serving in the Indian Army for 21 years was discharged from service after fulfilling 15 years of terms of engagement, was decorated with the following medals and certificates- i) Raksha Medal 1965 ii) Sainya Seva Services Medal with clasp Jammu and Kashmir Medal with clasp H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »