Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
R.Shoba Vs. T.Saravanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.81 of 2011 in G.W.O.P.No.202 of 2011 dated 18.07.2011 pending on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The revision petitioner has stated that her husband had filed a divorce petition against her before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2011 on the ground of cruelty. While so, her husband filed G.W.O.P.No.202 of 2011 along with interlocutory application No.81 of 2011 for custody of children. (ii) The husband/respondent herein has filed the above interlocutory application in I.A.No.81 of 2011 for interim custody of the children for the purpose of providing good education. The minor boy, namely, master S.Minesh was born on 14.05.2002. Initially, he studied at Mylode Victory Matriculation School at Thingalnagar. Subsequently, in order to provide good education, the boy was admitted in 4th standard ...
Tag this Judgment!J.Selvaraj Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2011 and grant permission to the members of the St.Antony's Church to go on Pilgrimage on 29.08.2011 from St.Antony Church to Perumalkovilpatti to Velankanni carrying statute of Mother Mary “Saparam” in a Tri-Cycle. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindna, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.Sarvaghan Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2011 and grant permission to the members of the St.Antony's Church to go on Pilgrimage on 29.08.2011 from St.Antony Church on a particular route. 5. On not...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Annamalaiyar Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Deputy Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in S.P.No.31 of 2011 in A.P.No.VAT 62/2011 dated 20.07.2011, quash the same insofar as the condition regarding the furnishing of Bank Guarantee for the balance tax of Rs.4,28,468/- and the entire penalty of Rs.11,83,494/- is concerned and further direct the first respondent to grant stay till disposal of the appeal in A.P.No.VAT 62/2011. 2. Heard Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. In respect of the assessment year 2006-2007, an assessment order was passed on 17.05.2011 in TIN No.33515501651/2006-07, whereby there is a dispute with regard to the tax in a sum of Rs.11,83,494/- and penalty of Rs.11,83,494/-. An appeal was filed and pending the appeal, the...
Tag this Judgment!Jayadasa Engineering and Exports P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. Demand of service tax of Rs.4,77,196/- covering the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 under the proviso to Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest has been confirmed by the authorities below and penalty of Rs.4,84,578/- has been imposed under Section 78 ibid and a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 (1) (a) ibid. The demand arises as a result of difference between the figures shown in relevant balance sheet (which are higher) and the figures shown in the ST-3 returns filed (which are lower). The demand also includes service tax levy on fees for lectures delivered by the Director of the assessee, who is an expert in the field of electric wiring. 2. I have heard both sides. The explanation offered by the assessee for the discrepancy in the figures in the balance sheet and the ST-3 returns is that as per Section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956, the books of account are to be maintained on accrual basis and proper books of account are not deemed to have been kept if the boo...
Tag this Judgment!Pure Trading Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. The above appeal arises out of order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) remitting the claim of the assessees for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imported soda ash, to the lower authority for production of all relevant documents with respect to eligibility of the refund. 2. I have heard both sides. The claim is for refund of SAD paid on a quantity of 2400 MTs of soda ash cleared for home consumption (3000 MTs was imported and into-bond Bills of Entry were filed, while ex-bond Bills of Entry for a quantity of 2400 MTs). During the hearing, verification report from the Additional Commissioner was placed before the Bench by ld. SDR which would show that landed cost for 2400 MTs was less than Rs.7928/- while the assessees have sold at Rs.8000/- per MT. This, therefore, would clearly show that the assessees are correct in their submission that they have not passed on incidence of duty to their customers. Further, the amount of refund claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. S. Parvathy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of 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 JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/complainant was having joint account with her husband Senthilkumar in the opposite partys bank and due to dispute between her husband and her certain details relating to the bank account were sought for by the complainant from the opposite party for which the opposite party at the 1st instance furnished wrong details and after legal notice from the complainant side and also complained before the Banking Ombudsmen she was in a position to get the necessary details from the opposite party and thereby for the negligence on the part of the opposite party in not providing particulars sought for in spite of repeated representations and legal notices not commun...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, M/S.icici Bank Limited Vs. B.Ponnuvijayan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellant side 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 JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant purchased Hero Honda two wheeler from the opposite party by obtaining loan for Rs.44,600/- on agreement to repay at Rs.1,392/- in 36 EMI during the month of May 2006. When the complainant was not in a position to repay the 2nd instalment on 22.7.06 when he approached the bank for payment the vehicle parked outside the bank was taken away by the opposite party against law and only on receipt of telegram he came to know about it and thereafter he has sent 3 months due along with legal notice. It was received by the opposite party in which claiming the surrender of vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. As the opposite party failed to comply came ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Uma Shankar Vs. the Government of India, Rep. by the Secretary and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. After exhausting the statutory remedies available to him the applicant had approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by way of filing W.P.No.49193 of 2006 for disability pension challenging the impugned orders of the first respondent vide No.6(210)/2003/D (Pen A and AC), dated 20.09.2006 read with, the order issued by the First Appellate Committee as communicated to the applicant by the first respondent vide order No.PN/0134/38/IHQ(N)/DPA, dated 28.02.2003. The said writ petition was transferred to this Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and the same was renumbered as T.A.No.3 of 2011. 2. The applicant has filed an application M.A.No.52 of 2011 for amending the prayer so as to incorporate an alternative relief of providing any other suitable post as per Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Particip...
Tag this Judgment!Petition Periyasamy Alias Periyasamy Vs. P.Alagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the District Munsif at Manapparai, Tiruchirappali District to dispose of the O.S.No.190 of 2000 within a period that may be stipulated by this court. 2.The short facts of the case is as follows:- (i) The revision petitioner/1st defendant has filed the above revision stating that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.190 of 2000 against this revision petitioner and others on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manapparai, Tiruchirappali District. The plaintiffs have sought relief against the defendants stating that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are exclusive possession of the suit property and therefore they should be declared as absolute owners of the property and other relief. (ii) The defendants have filed written statement and resisted the suit. Thereafter, the suit is being adjourned from time to time. Hence, the revision petitioner/1st defendant has filed the above revision for expeditious trial of the case. 3.T...
Tag this Judgment!Josephine and anr. Vs. therasa Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by them was dismissed. 2. The appellants herein are the owners of the suit property. Admittedly, there was tenancy between the appellants and the respondent being the landladies and tenant respectively. Thereafter, a deed was executed mortgaging the suit property under Ex.A.1 dated 19.03.1980. As per the said deed, possession has been given in favour of the respondent for a period of five years. The respondent was permitted to enjoy the suit property either by residing there or by letting out the same. After the execution of Ex.A.1, an extension deed was executed under Ex.A.7 dated 13.03.1985. As per the said deed, it has been stated that the respondent can have the possession of the suit property for a period of 2 years and after the same, when the appellants pay the amount, the possession will have to be handed over to them without any object...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »