Chennai Court July 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.
The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Navapoorna Sundari and An ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the cost of motor cycle as valued in the policy, alongwtih compensation of Rs.50000/- 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.12.05.2010 in CC.No.19/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 04.07.2011. 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: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainants husband had purchased a motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-69 U4057, from the 2nd opposite party, which was insured with the 1st opposite party, covering the period 22.3.2006 to 21.3.2007. Unfortuna...
ShaziasamrIn Vs. the Co-ordiantor Anand Study Centre and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
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 mark sheet, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- 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.26.9.2008 in OP.No.48/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 04.07.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, 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 is the appellant. 2. Case of the complainant: The complainant completed the first year B.com course in Muthu Arts College, Harur. Thereafter she shifted her course of status to Periyar Institute of Distance Education, Salem, run by the 2nd opposite party, and had joined in the first opposite ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Dinesh Digital Color Lab
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Credit of CVD paid by the respondents herein on 4 items out of 22 imported by M/s.Noritsu Koko Co.Ltd. and sold to M/s.Kodak India Pvt. Ltd.,who then sold them to the assessees herein has been extended by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is against such extension that the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The items in dispute are 1) Film Scanner S-2 (with standard accessories) 2) Control Station CS-1-1 (with standard accessories) 3) Laser printer LP-1700 (with standard accessories) and 4) Paper Processor PP-1213 (with standard accessories). The Revenue is also in appeal against setting aside of the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1944. 3. I have heard both sides. I find that there is no dispute that M/s.Noritsu (importers) discharged duty liability on the four items in dispute and there is no further dispute that the assessees took credit only of the duty paid on the four items above mentioned. Therefore, there ...
Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The request of the exporters for conversion of shipping bills for export of plant equipment into DEPB scheme shipping bill has been rejected by the Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the conditions for conversion stipulated in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 have not been fulfilled. 2. I have heard both sides. The exporters submit that they are in possession of documents available at the time of export itself, namely, ARE-1s etc. which would require to be considered and conversion allowed, if an opportunity is given to them afresh before the Commissioner. Careful consideration of para-9 of the impugned order of the Commissioner brings out that no documents were considered before rejecting the claim for amendment in terms of Section 149. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) to consider the documents to be filed by the exporters in order to fulfill the requirement of statutory provisions ...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Opp. Raja Thiruma ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 28.06.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both side counsels and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order : ORDER J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful opposite party in the complaint is the appellant herein. 2. This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Salem in C.O.P.No.1/2005 dated 14.11.2007 directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,743/- towards repair charges with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and a sum of rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with costs of Rs.2,000/-, on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the complainants claim under the policy. 3. The case of the complainant is that he is holder of Trader Certificate and it was insured under the Trader Insurer with the opposite party. The vehicle No.TN 30B 4626 wa...
Madurai City Mutton Retail Sellers Association Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Three writ petitions have been filed in W.P.(MD) Nos.10417, 11648 and 11684 of 2010. These three writ petitions have been disposed of by the Honourable Division Bench in and by its order dated 18.10.2010. 2. W.P.(MD) No.10417 of 2010 has been filed by an association seeking a direction, forbearing the respondent Madurai Corporation from in any way closing the slaughter house situated at Quaid-Millath Nagar, Nelpettai, Madurai - 1 with consequent direction to direct the respondent Corporation to retain the said slaughter house in the existing place. 3. W.P.(MD) No.11684 of 2010 was filed by another association seeking a direction, directing the respondent Corporation permitting its members to proceed with the slaughtering at Quaid-Millath Nagar, Ward No.48 of Madurai. 4. As against these two writ petitions filed on behalf of the members, who are the owners of mutton stalls, a writ petition was filed in W.P.(MD) No.11648 of 2010 by an individual seeking a direction forbearing the resp...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue in dispute namely as to whether the assessees herein are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal during the period in dispute which is September 2006 to March 2007 stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. M/s. ABB Ltd, Vadodara and Ors. - 2011-TIOL-395-HC-KAR. The Hon’ble High Court has held that outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal is covered by the definition of “input service” upto 31.3.2008 and service tax paid thereon is eligible as CENVAT credit, upholding the Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd. and Ors. - 2009-TIOL-830 upto 1.4.2008. Following the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court’s order, I uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Reven...
M/S. Brakes India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ltu, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. In this case a show-cause notice dated 5.1.2009 was issued to the assessees who are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles parts, proposing denial of credit of Rs.2,28,441/- of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services, port services and fumigation services used in the export of their goods to various countries during the period December 2007 to October 2008. The assessees replied to the notice stating that they had availed credit of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services, fumigation services, courier services and goods transport agency services. The adjudicating authority did not record any finding on the stand of the assessees that the above mentioned four services were the only services availed by them and on that they had taken credit of the service tax paid, and confirmed the demand raised in the notice together with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- for the CENVAT credit irregularly availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the a...
The District Collector Ariyalur and Another Vs. K. Malairaja and Other ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
The 1st 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.95000/- as compensation for mental agony, 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.06.01.2010 in CC.No.54/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.06.2011. 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, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/ respondent acquired ownership in Survey No.260/11, two scents, by virtue of sale deed dt.2.11.92. In the same survey No., the maternal uncle Malaikani, had purchased two scents, and purchased a house, and one Chokalingam unable to pay the l...
The Executive Engineer, O and M Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Ariyalur ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
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 give service connection on getting Rs.2,12,845/- alongwith compensation of RS.10000/- 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.28.01.2010 in CC.No.2/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.06.2011. 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: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party, unable to satisfy the District Forum, though they were sound in their defense, failed, suffered an award, resulting this appeal. 2. The complainant/ respondent, being the owner of Survey No.1753, situated at Nayaganai Priyal Village, had applied for service co...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »