Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
Annamallai Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. Heard both sides. Shri S.Kothandaraman, ld. consultant appearing for the appellants states that the dispute in this case is restricted to imposition of penalty. He states that appellants themselves voluntarily approached the departmental authorities and once it was clarified that they are liable to pay service tax, the tax along with interest has been promptly paid. As such, he prays for waiver of the penalty. 2. Heard ld. SDR who supports the impugned order. 3. After hearing both sides, I find that this case is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, in as much as there was no investigation against the appellants nor there was any show-cause notice issued to them. The fact that they had voluntarily approached the authorities is also recorded in the order of the original authority. As such, penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!M.A.Y.Peer Mohamed Abba and anr. Vs. S.Sahul Hameed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1.The revision petitioners/appellants have filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 15.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.188 of 2010 in A.S.No.79 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents/plaintiff have filed a suit in O.S.No.864 of 2004 against the revision petitioners/defendants to restrain him from disturbing them with their peaceful possession. The said case was resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants herein. After adjudication, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the appellant has filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.79 of 2010 and challenged the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. While the appeal suit was pending, the revision petitioners filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.188 of 2010 in A.S.No.79 of 2010 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to find out the location of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. T. Thirunalasundari Vs. the Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the appointment of the third respondent, as Professor in Microbiology Department in Bharathidasan University, being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, with a consequential prayer of issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to appoint the petitioner with effect from Syndicate approval, and date of announcement of Selection i.e., 08.07.2005 with all monetary, and service benefits, and consequential relief. 2. The consequential prayer made by the petitioner, is absolutely misconceived, this Court cannot direct appointment of a person, but can only direct, the State Authorities to consider for appointment, that too with prospective effect, in case petitioner is eligible for such an appointment. 3. The petitioner was working as Professor and Head in Mother Teresa Women's University, Kodaikanal, while retaining her lien with Bharathidasan University. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rengalakshmi Educational Trust and ors. Vs. David Raj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1.The revision petitioners/defendants have filed the above revision to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.463 of 2011 in O.S.No.375 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif, Dindigul, dated 21.06.2011. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the revision petitioners/defendants for injunction restraining the respondents, their men or agent or any one acting on behalf of the respondents from any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, pending disposal of the application and permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men or agent or any one acting on behalf of the respondents herein from any way interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, pending disposal of the suit. The said case came for hearing on 21.06.2011, the learned Judge, after perusal of the documents relating to the suit schedule mentioned property, granted ad-int...
Tag this Judgment!Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., (Formerly Deccan Aviation Ltd.,) Rep. by Its ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
(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 a sum of Rs.19,690.80/- with 18% interest p.a., and also to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as da,ages and Rs.10000/- as 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.04.05.2010 in CC.No.210/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 18.08.2011. 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 1st opposite party, by filing this appeal, challenges the order of the district Forum dt.4.5.2010, wherein a direction has been given against them, to pay a sum of Rs.64,690.80/-, with compensation of Rs.5000/-, alongwith cost. 2. The 1st respondent/ c...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Sankaralingam and Another Vs. Mrs. Indira Shankugam and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
(The 1st Respondent/ 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 medical expenses, Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the 1st opposite party in F.A.No.260/2009, and by 2nd opposite party in F.A.No.436/2009 praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.20.7.2009 in C.C.No.273/2003. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order:) COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellant in F.A.No.260/2009 and 436/2009, respectively. 2. The parties are referred in this order, as arrayed in CC.273/2003. 3. The complainant having developed pain in t...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R. Savithri
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
(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 the policy amount alongwith 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.18.02.2010 in CC.No.6/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 01.08.2011. 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 LIC of India/ appellant, as opposite party, suffered an adverse order, dt.18.2.2010, which is challenged in this appeal. 2. The respondent/ complainant, approached the District Forum, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.98,750/-, with interest thereon, being the amount representing accident benefit under two policies, alleging deficien...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager State Bank of India Komarapalayam Branch Vs. R. Thi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,029/- alongwith interest to the 1st complainant and compensation of Rs.50000/-. 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.18.02.2010 in CC.No.10/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 04.08.2011. 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. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent, approaching the opposite party bank, availed educational loan in A/c No.01593010697, renumbered as ETL A/c.10348316798, for her studies in Stony Brook University in Newyork, USA, and the sanctioned amount was Rs.15 l...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.Trust and ors. Vs. S.Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners to strike off the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.320 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.320 of 2011 along with an interlocutory application in I.A.No.378 of 2011 against the revision petitioners/defendants before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai to (a) pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff to declare the board meeting allegedly held on 17.02.2011 of the first defendant trust at Meenakshi Mission Hospital and the consequent removal of the plaintiff as a trustee of the first defendant trust and director of academics as illegal, null and void (b) pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men agents or persons from preventing the plaintiff from discharging his duties in the first defendant trust as a trustee and director of academics as he pe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalakshmi Vs. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1.The revision petitioner/defendant has filed the above revision against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.436 of 2010 in O.S.No.59 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Usilampatti and the same is liable to be set aside. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2008 against the revision petitioner/defendant before the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti for permanent injunction and other relief. The said suit was posted on 22.01.2009, for filing written statement. On that day, the defendant had not appeared. Hence, the suit was set ex parte. 3.Aggrieved by the set ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.59 of 2006 dated 22.01.2009, the revision petitioner has filed set aside application along with condone delay petition. The same was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on both sides, dismissed the set aside application stating that the delay o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »