Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Eta Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in these appeals namely classification of ducts manufactured out of GI sheets stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the assessee’s own case, as seen from 2006 (200) ELT A138 (SC) upholding the Tribunal’s decision in 2006 (197) ELT 372. It has been held that the goods in question that ducts fall for classification under Chapter Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees. The Apex Court’s decision has been subsequently followed in Final Order No. 1064/2010 dated 6.10.2010 in the case of the same assessee. The result of classification under Heading 73.08 is that goods would be exempt from payment of duty. Although the Commissioner has held that the item in question is not excisable, in the light of the Apex Court’s decision (supra), we hold that the goods are excisable falling for classification under Chapter 73.08 and exempt from payment of duty. 2. The or...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Madurai Special Divi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain directions from the opposite party . 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.13.03.2006 in CC.No.54/2001. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 13.07.2011. 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 opposite party is the appellants. 2. The complainant was allotted an MIG 146 house, at Anayur Sect III, by the opposite party, fixing the tentative cost at Rs.3,17,250/-, which is to be paid, spread over 13 years @ Rs.3394/- p.m, with interest at17.75%. The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.3,61,098/- as on 3.11.98, and actual possession was given only on 16.11....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Senthilkumar Child Specialist Vadagarai Periyakulam Vs. K. Kasi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
(The 1 to 3 Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.125000/- 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.14.03.2008 in CC.No.64/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 8.7.2011. 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, having suffered a direction in the hands of the District Forum heavily, has come before this commission, challenging the said order dt.14.3.2008 inCC.No.64/2007, on the file of District Forum, Theni. 2. Tmt. Jothi, wife of the 1st complainant, mother of complainants 2 and 3, was suffering from fe...
Tag this Judgment!N.Muthu Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition to direct the fourth respondent to disburse the arrears amount due to the petitioner for the works that have been done by him between the year 2004 and 2006 in Perur Panchayat as per the urgent Memo issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.A5/1300/2011 dated 23.05.2011. 2. Heard Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.4. 3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4.The petitioner claims that he undertook certain works in the fourth respondent and certain amounts are due to him in respect of the recommendations made by the Block Development Officer. The fourth respondent Panchayat is not releasing the amount and he has made a representation to the second respondent on 16...
Tag this Judgment!Periya Perumal Vs. the Member Secretary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondent from entering on his land or constructing a road thereon without following due process of law, i.e., acquiring the land after paying the market value of the land. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 04.04.2006, and an interim order of injunction was granted, restraining the respondents from encroaching upon the land, of the petitioner. 3. In support of the prayer made, the case set up by the petitioner, is that he is the owner of house plot measuring 3360 sq.ft falling under S.No.59/3 of Madakulam village. The respondents without acquiring the land, are taking steps to carve out a road on the private land of the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instruction from respondent No.1 state that there is no proposal to lay any road through the property of the petitioner nor there is any intention to acquire t...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu State Government Transport Corporation Vs. the State of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, for directing the transfer of proceedings, in crime No.400 of 2005 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Nagercoil, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2.The petitioner is neither the complainant nor a party to the criminal proceedings. 3.The case has been registered against the employees, working in the Department, on the allegations of misappropriation of 12,000 liters of diesel. No material is placed on record against the State police with regard to investigation, being partial or not being conducted in appropriate manner . 4.The only ground pleaded for transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation is, that the petitioner has not faith in the State police. 5.Without placing any material on record, showing favoritism or injustice being caused to the Department, by defective or partial investigation, mere lack of faith cannot be a ground to transfer the case from th...
Tag this Judgment!V. Muthusubramanian Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner had approached this Court, for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing his Appeal against the order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank on 21.02.1977 as Apprentice Trainee. He was confirmed as Clerk in 1978. The petitioner was granted regular promotion, and finally rose to the level of Senior Manager in the year 1999. 3. While being posted at Madurai Main Branch, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.04.2002. The charges levelled against the petitioner reads as under:- 1.You failed to discharge your duties with devotion and diligence and thereby failed to take all necessary steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank in violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Karur Vysya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations. 2.You failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity and honest and thereby acted in a manner unbecomi...
Tag this Judgment!V.Santhalakshmi Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner, as Headmistress in any Government or aided private school with continuity of service and also to pay the arrears of salary from the month of July 2004. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she was employed as Headmistress in Sri Krishna Aided Primary School at Kumbakonam. The fire broke in school on 16.07.2004, killing 94 children. 3. A criminal case vide Cr.No.261 of 2004 under Section 304(a) IPC was registered against the Correspondent of the school and four others including the petitioner. Subsequently, the FIR has been changed to one under Sections 304, 338,285,108 and 109 of I.P.C. 4. The petitioner along with 25 other person including Correspondent of the school have been charged in the criminal case. On account of the occurrence of fire on 16.07.2004, the State withdrew the recognition granted to the school unde...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt.S.Christy Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Post Graduate Teacher(Chemistry)w.e.f. his date of appointment i.e., 20.12.2006, with all consequential benefits. 2.The admitted facts are: That the petitioner joined the service on 20.12.2006 with the respondent No.4 as Post- Graduate Assistant in Chemistry. The petitioner possess the qualification of M.Sc(Chemistry) with B.Ed degree. The post against which the petitioner is appointed arose on account of the voluntary retirement of Tmt.T.Annie Nirmala. The proposal for release of salary of the petitioner was sent to the District Educational Officer on 29.12.2006. In spite of repeated requests, the respondents till date have not granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner nor they have answered the representation filed by the petitioner. 3. On issuance of notice of the Writ Petition, a c...
Tag this Judgment!V.Mohammed Niyasudeen Vs. Madurai District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent bank to grant interest free educational loan of Rs.4,36,500/- to the petitioner within the period stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner seeks Educational Loan and filed this writ petition. 4. The respondent Bank filed the counter affidavit and in paragraphs 5 and 6, it reads as follows: V. Subsequently, the petitioner has given copy of the ration card and approached our bank for educational loan. The perusal of the ration card reveals that, the petitioner is residing in Ward No.21 in Thirumangalam. This address is identified in revenue department as Ward No.21 in Thirumangalam Municipality. Hence I requested to approach the relevant bank i.e. Indian Bank at Thirumangalam which is the service provider of Gover...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »