Chennai Court June 2011 Judgments
Goodsun Industries Sf-206 Vs. Kalaiselvan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to provide new solar water heater, or to refund RS.18000/- and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. 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.19.05.2009 in CC.No.18/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 03.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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. Challenge in this appeal is the order dt.9.3.2007, on the file of District Forum, Namakkal, wherein directions were issued, not only to refund the amount, for the solar water heater purchased, but also for compensation. 2. The respondent/ complainant had purchased a solar water heater, fro...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohaideen Bashaw Vs. Doddabetta Pacb, Rep. by Its Secretary
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
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 Rs.76,553/- as compensation under various heads. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order, as per the order of the District Forum dt.31.10.2007 in C.C.4/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, Written Argument of appellant as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant [second complainant]. 2. The second complainant/appellant being the member of the opposite partys bank, obtained a crop loan of Rs.10,000/- on 14.02.87. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- with the bank as share amount, in addition to Rs.2,500/- as thrif...
Tag this Judgment!Bay Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. The appellants herein, who are manufacturers of steel forgings and aluminium rings, purchased steel ingots from M/s.Facor Steel Ltd., Nagpur, one of the raw material suppliers. During the process of manufacture of their final products, appellants noticed that some of the steel ingots were defective and therefore they carried out certain grinding and annealing operations on the ingots to make them fit for use in the manufacture of the final products and debited the cost of grinding and annealing by raising debit note for Rs.1,61,900/- on the raw material supplier. Service tax under the head “Business Auxiliary Service” was demanded and confirmed together with interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority and the appeals against the demand and penalty were dismissed by the lower appellate authority; hence these appeals. 2. I have heard both sides. I see force in the contention of the assessees that no service was rendered by the assessees to M/s.Facor Steel Ltd., the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Medical Superintendent Southern Railway and Another Vs. V.V. Ven ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-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 Rs.197055/- towards medical reimbursement with 12% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-. 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.8.2.2008 in CC.No.145/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 3.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 necessary for the disposal of the appeal in brief. The complainant/ respondent, being a retired Station Superintendent, became a member of the Retired Employees Liberalised Health Scheme, by paying one time...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. J. Menaka Vs. M/S. Psg Hospital Rep. by Its Medical Director Peel ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4 lakhs towards loss with 24% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost. 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.23.1.2008 in CC.No.12/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 02.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 complainant having failed before the District Forum to have redressal, which was addressed on the basis of medical negligence, has come before this commission, as appellant, seeking redressal. 2. Brief facts relating to the case: The complainant, had medical checkup with the 2nd op...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kasinathan Vs. the Branch Manager K.K.W. Associates Collection Agen ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to issue the cash receipt for RS.35,000/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 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.12.1.2009 in OP.No.167/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 01.06.2011. 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 complainant having failed before the District Forum, complaining deficiency, has come before this commission, as appellant, claiming same relief. 2. The complainant/ appellant, was having a credit card, issued by the 2nd opposite party from 25.10.2005, and the card No.43467...
Tag this Judgment!Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Ltd., and Another Vs. Dr. M. Kunju Proj ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-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 Rs.5000/- incurred by the complainant towards road tax, to pay RS.25000/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. 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.19.05.2009 in CC.No.18/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 02.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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. The complainant/respondent, functioning as Manging Director of Nilgiris, District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, was transferred to Chennai, and therefore his car RC and Lorry Receipt bill, were sent to Madras, b...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director M/S. Jms Car Service Centre Vs. Sabitha K. Curri ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.54,712.82 to pay punitive compensation, and to pay Rs.150000/- as compensation, alongwith 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.18.07.2006 in CC.No.78/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 03.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent, filed a complaint against the opposite party, claiming for relief of return of service charges of RS.54,712.80/-, and Rs.1 lakh towards punitive compensation, and a sum of RS.150000/- as compensation for purchas...
Tag this Judgment!No.4184860 Ex. Sep. P. Ravichandran Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Sec ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Challenging the impugned order of the first respondent in NO.6(146)/2003/D(Pen) Appeal dated 04.01.2008, which was intimated by the third respondent vide letter No.4184860/DP, dated 14.05.2010, refusing to give effective date of Disability Pension with effect from 26.09.2000 ie. the date of discharge from service instead of 26.06.2006 ie., the date of holding Review Medical Board. 2. According to the applicant, he has served in the Army from 28.04.1992 to 28.09.2000 (8 years 5 months) and he was invalided out of Army service in Low Medical Category EEE on 26.09.2000. His initial Invaliding Medical Board was held at 151 Base Hospital, C/o 99 APO and approved by Offg DADIL HQ 101 area on 5th September 2000 with 50% disability. His disability was declared as A personality disorder and not connected with service conditions. Because of the said finding, the PCDA (P), Allahabad, also rejected the disability claim vide their letter No.G3/...
Tag this Judgment!Hi Tech Arai Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. and Service Tax, Ltu Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. For reasons recorded below, I dispense with predeposit of CENVAT Credit, interest and penalty (details of which are contained in the annexure to this order) and proceed to decide the appeals themselves at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. The assessees, who are engaged in the manufacture of compounded rubber and moulded rubber products viz. oil seals and parts and accessories of motor vehicles, took credit of service tax paid on maintenance and insurance services in respect of wind mills for generation of electricity, which was disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that service tax paid on insurance charges do not qualify to be covered within the definition of “input service”. Demands were confirmed together with interest and penalties were imposed. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Form ST-4 along with applications for condonation of delay. The lower appellate authority treated the appeals as Central Excise app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »