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.
M.Vasanthi Vs. the Joint Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Admit. The Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was working as a Headmistress of Sri Kanthimathi Ambal Girls Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli, which is an aided private school under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, which is stated to be parting finance in respect of the administration of the said school. Admittedly, the said school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] and rules made thereunder. The second respondent has issued the impugned charge memo on 14.08.2009 by invoking the powers of Section 18(1)(c) r/w Section 22 of the Act. The charges are that since she has not administered the school properly as the Headmistress of the school and due to her inefficiency, the students strength h...
P.Jeya Prakash Vs. the Managing Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, dated 27.12.2001 vide which representation of the petitioner, dated 30.11.2001 was ordered to be rejected. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 27.07.2003 vide which his request for re-employment was rejected, by recording that he had already been informed about the rejection of his request, in view of acceptance of his resignation. 3. The petitioner thereafter approached the Legal Services Authority, and in response thereto, the petitioner was again informed, that in view of the acceptance of his resignation, he could not claim re-employment. He was directed to fill the requisite forms for release of Provident Fund etc. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground that it was not open to the respondents to relieve the petitioner after his resignation was rejected, and on the ground that the appointing authority in the case of petitioner was respond...
Chellammal and anr. Vs. Sarasvathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 to set aside the order dated 04.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.225 of 2009 in O.S.No.106 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.106 of 2007 against the defendants 8 in numbers for partition and separate posse4ssion. At the time of filing the suit, some item of property was not included in the schedule property of the plaint for partition. Only after seeing the patta, the respondent/plaintiff has come to know that the item of property also belongs to the joint family. Hence, an interlocutory application was filed in I.A.No.225 o 2009 for including the said item in the schedule property. The said application was opposed by the respondents, stating that already the plaintiff was examined and subsequent to that while the first defendant was being examined, the said application has been filed at a belated stage. ...
Thangaraj Vs. the Block Development Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 19.10.2005, passed by the Block Development Officer, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District, directing the petitioner to stop construction of house, being raised by the petitioner and to select some other site, under the Indira Avaas Yojana Scheme. 2.The admitted facts are that the petitioner was assigned plot No.44 in S.F.No.214/5 at Sevalur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pudukkottai, in the year 1987. The petitioner is in possession of said plot, since the date of allotment. 3.The petitioner was selected by the Panchayat Union, as eligible person for construction of house under the Indira Avaas Yojana Scheme 2005-2006. 4.The petitioner was allowed to construct a house at a cost of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty thousand only] by the President, Sevalur Panchayat, vide order, dated 17.08.2005. The construction stands completed, by raising lo...
G. Muthukumar Prop. M/S. Anantha Cable Tv Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
According to the applicant who have filed the COD application out of abundant caution, there is no delay in filing the appeal as the Order-in-Revision dated 24.2.2010 and the Corrigendum dated 25.2.2010 was not served and the assessees obtained a copy after receiving the demand notice. However, on verification, learned SDR has been able to establish with reference to postal acknowledgment that the Order-in-Revision as well as Corrigendum was received on behalf of the assessees. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay in filing the above appeal (about 256 days). The assessees have not offered any explanation as to why they could not file the appeal within the time. The COD application is therefore dismissed. As a result the appeal is also dismissed as time barred along with the stay application....
M/S. Jai Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Demand of service tax of Rs.2,04,000/- together with interest and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs stand challenged in the present appeal, covering the period 10.9.2004 to 31.1.2006. 2. According to the assessees, commission received post 10.9.2004 is liable to tax under the category of business auxiliary service. However, it is their contention that commission received even prior to 10.9.2004 has been included in the demand. It is their further contention that they are not liable to pay service tax on an amount of Rs.1,92,316/- paid towards road tax, insurance etc. under instructions of customers and reimbursed to them. 3. I find that neither of the authorities below has considered this submission that even amounts of commission received prior to 10.9.2004 having been included in the demand. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority before whom all issues are left open for fresh decision. He shall pass fresh orders after ex...
M/S. Agsar Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madura ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has disallowed total credit of Rs.21,360/- of service tax paid on (i) telephone service (ii) vehicle maintenance (iii) fixed telephones and (iv) courier agency and has upheld penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. I have heard both sides. On the appeal which has been filed only against the denial of credit of service tax paid on telephone service, I agree with the assessees that telephone service having been used for sales promotion, (this is the stand of the assessees in the reply to the show-cause notice which has not been rebutted by the Department), this service is an eligible input service as it is a service used in connection with the activity of business of manufacture of final products by the assesses. I, therefore, hold that the credit of service tax paid on telephone service is admissible to the assessees. Since there is no bifurcation of the amounts denied in r...
M. Amanullakhan, Ifs (Retd) and Another Vs. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,25,000/- with interest. The District Forum rejected the unnumbered complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.04.2010 in MP.No.27/2009 in unnumbered complaint. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 14.7.2011. 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 petitioners/ complainants, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, in MP.No.27/2009, have preferred this appeal to condone the delay, since the District Forum refused to do so. 2. Petitioners/ complainants have filed a case against the opposite party/ respondent/advocate, claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs,...
P.Dhanasekaran Vs. the Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The writ petitioner was working as a Health Inspector in the Primary Health Centre at E.Pudupatti, Theni District, and under the impugned order, dated 14.10,.2009, passed by the 1st respondent, he was transferred and posted at the Primary Health Centre, Varusanadu, Theni District. The transfer order is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, including that he underwent cardiac surgery on 06.10.2009 while working at E.Pudupatti and the transfer under the impugned order on which he is posted at Varusanadu, a hill area, is detrimental to his health condition. That apart, according to the petitioner, even though under the impugned order it is stated it is an administrative transfer, it is actually punitive in nature in which event necessary opportunity must be given to him before effecting transfer.2.In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is specifically stated that many complaints have been received against the petitioner, including that he has not attended a...
M/S.Professional Couriers, Rep.by Mr.Rajasekhar and Others Vs. M/S.P.S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 01.07.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order : ORDER J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties in the complaint are the appellants herein. 2. The opposite parties have filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum in COP No.33/2003 dated 23.08.2007 directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and sufferings and costs of Rs.500/-. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 22.06.2002 the complainant booked a sealed cover containing currency of Rs.15,450/- with the 1st opposite party to be delivered to the addressee/consignee at Chennai. But the cover was not delivered to the addressee and hence the complaint. 4. According to the opposite parties the cover sent by the respondent/ complainant was delivered to the addressee/consignee in good condition on 24.06.2002. 5. The Distri...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »