Chennai Court April 2011 Judgments
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. O.A.V.Sr ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai(North), alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay the purchase price, to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings and to pay Rs.4,000/- towards cost of litigation. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(North), dated 20.08.08 in C.C.No.139/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.04.2011, 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.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the opposite party before the District Forum claiming for the purchase pr...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mahaveerchand Dugar Vs. M/S. Coronet Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
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 deliver the constructed flat as agreed in the agreement, to pay Rs.1,05,000/- towards the delay of 42 months as agreed in the agreement, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.02.2009 in C.C.19/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 05.04.2011, 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 having failed before the District Forum to get the desired order, has come to this Commission as appellant for redressal. 2. The complainant entered into...
Tag this Judgment!K.Palani, Proprietor Vs. A. Munusamy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai(South), alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay total Rs.7,44,828/- and to pay costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South), dated 11.06.08 in O.P.No.624/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.04.2011, 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.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the opposite party before the District Forum seeking for the reliefs of payments of amount incurred in the construction of building for rs.7,44,828/- and including Rs.2,00,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nalini Mohandas Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Rep by and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Widow of Late K.Mohandas [Ex Cpl 298776], after failing in her attempt to get double Family Pension before the competent authority, has approached this Tribunal for double Family Pension challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide, Air Force Records, New Delhi, letter No.Ro/2853/1/Cpl HD/ P and WW(FP), dated 9th November 2010. 2. According to the applicant, her husband Ex Cpl K.Mohandas (No.298776) had served in the Indian Air Force for 15 years and was discharged with service pension. Thereafter, he was employed in the State Bank of India and was in receipt of Air Force service pension and salary from State Bank of India where he was employed. While he was in service in State Bank of India, he died on 18.04.2005 due to cancer. On his death, civil family pension from the State Bank of India was paid to the applicant, but service family pension from Indian Air Force was denied to her vide Air Force Records, New Delhi,...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of credit of service tax paid by the assessees, who are manufacturers of parts of motor vehicles, for gardeners and helpers. 2. I have heard both sides. The learned counsel for the assessees has not established as to how gardening has a nexus with the activity of the business of the assessees namely that of manufacture of motor vehicle parts. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) has held that credit is admissible to services which have a nexus with the activity of the business of the assessee. The gardening services have not been established to have any connection or nexus with the activity of the business of the assessees, who are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts. As regards penalty, the case of the Revenue is that penalty is justified as during the period from April to November 2008, the assessees had not disclosed that they were availing credit from ineligi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Saravana Global Energy Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. In this case a demand of duty of Rs.39,986/- and education cess of Rs. 800/- has been confirmed together with interest in terms of Section 11A(2) read with Section 11AB on old scrap insulators cleared by the assessees to M/s. Mechtech Electricals on the ground that the goods cleared were akin to insulators manufactured and cleared on payment of duty by the assessees. In addition, a penalty of Rs.40,786/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rs.10,000/- in terms of Central Excise Rules has been imposed on the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. The invoice describes the goods as “old scrap insulators”. As rightly pointed out by the learned SDR the goods have been cleared on piece basis with a specific rate per piece. Generally scrap is sold on weight basis and not on piece basis. Therefore, the Revenue has made out a case that what was cleared by the assessees was nothing but old disc insulator liable to duty. The reliance placed by the assessees on the cer...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer [O and M], Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Oth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards agricultural loss, to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony, sufferings, to pay Rs.10,0000/- towards medical expenses and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards 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.14.02.2008 in C.C.10/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 08.04.2011, 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/complainant approached the District Forum, Erode, seeking a direction that he should be given service connection on the basis of well changing as well as he is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Areva Tandd India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ltu Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The applications for condonation of delay of 59 days in preferring the above appeals are allowed as we are satisfied with the reason given for the delay. 2. Now, we take up the stay applications and the appeals for hearing. We find that the issue namely as to whether interest is payable on delayed payment of duty, on the strength of supplementary invoices stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the apex court in CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd. [2009-TIOL-82-SC], although the ld. counsel seeks to rely and support the case on the strength of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s decision in CCE Bangalore Vs BHEL [2010-TIOL-437-HC-KAR]. Therefore, after granting the prayer for waiver as pre-condition for taking up the appeals for hearing, we dismiss the appeals as the issue stands settled by the decision of the apex court cited supra....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Balaji Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the assessees have not produced any proof of compliance with the direction for predeposit....
Tag this Judgment!Smt.C.Saroja Vs. Dr.Malarvizhi, Esi Hospital and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. 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, Coimbatore, dated 19.02.2008 in C.C.No.61/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 31.03.2011, 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.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint praying for the relief of directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »