Chennai Court August 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.
H.Ramalingam Alias Kumar Vs. R.Jeyabanu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1.The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the order dated 19.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.55 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner married the respondent on 11.07.1997 at Pushpam Kalyana Mandapam, North main street, Thanjavur town as per Hindu Customs and Rites. After the marriage, difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and his wife/respondent. Hence, the respondent/wife filed HMOP No.187 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur for divorce. The said divorce petition was opposed by the revision petitioner after filing counter statement. On 31.03.2010, the above said divorce petition came for hearing. On that day, the revision petitioner was called absent. The respondent/wife was examined as P.W.1 by her proof affidavit dated 12.02.2010 and documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.7. The allegations levelled against ...
G.N. Velu Cable Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. Heard both sides. Ld. advocate appearing for the appellants prays for option to be given for paying 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In support of his claim, he cites the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.)]. 2. Heard ld. DR who strongly contends that the penalty under Section 78 is imposable as the appellants stopped paying service tax and stopped filing service tax returns for a time and hence there was suppression of taxable value, apart from non-payment of tax in time which has been subsequently paid along with interest after detection by the department. 3. While upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, I find that the authorities below have not given an option to the appellants to pay 25% of the penalty as directed under the aforecited decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The appellants are, therefore, allow...
Commissioner of Customs, TuticorIn Vs. Sun International Links
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. Heard both sides. In this case, the lower appellate authority has reduced the redemption fine from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs and the penalty from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh leading to this appeal by the department. 2. Ld. consultant, Shri Masillamoney appearing for the respondents states that the respondents have accepted the enhanced value and have also paid additional duty amounting to about Rs.1.59 lakhs on account of such enhancement. Considering the fact that duty advantage sought to be taken by the respondents on account of undervaluation is only about Rs.1.59 lakhs, the reduction allowed in the redemption fine and penalty by the lower appellate authority does not require interference. Hence the departmental appeal is dismissed. Cross objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Bharath Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. Heard. ld. DR. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. There is also no adjournment request. Hence, the grounds of appeal advanced by the department remain uncontroverted. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh consideration after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 2. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Mrs.Jambakalakshmi Vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.08.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against opposite party praying for direction to send the Electric Meter fitted for testing at ETDC Lab to refund excess amount collected from the complainant over and above the amount due for poor consumption and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for damages for mental agony and to withdraw all plastic meters and reinstall old metallic meters and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The complainant having occupation in the premises in which a new 3 phase meter was installed on 11.12.2001, which is running like Olympic Marathan and thereby consumption of electricity reading was showing 3 times from the normal one and thereby the...
Mrs. Vijaya Vs. the District Collector Collectorate theni District and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs alongwith cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.3.2008 in CC.No.115/2007. 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: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant in order to purchase two plots, in Survey No.62, in Palanichettypatti village, applied for encumbrance for 17 years, which was given on 27.11.2007, denoting the title of the vendor to the complainant. On that basis, the complainant purchased the property viz. Plot No.24...
M/S. Digital World Rep. by Its Partner R. Raakesh Vs. Tvs Iyengar and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of pay Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony, Rs.50000/- towards retaining the vehicle, alngwith service cost of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.7.2008 in CC.No.235/2006. 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: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had purchased Siera DSL ELX vehicle, manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, from its dealer, the 1st opposite party, in the year 2003 January, for which corporate warranty was give...
N.Gurusamy Nadar Vs. Nagalinga Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1.The revision petitioner/1st defendant has filed the above revision to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.377 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Thanjavur, dated 02.02.2011 and allow the above civil revision petition. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.377 of 2004 against the 1st defendant and his men/agents from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and running of provision store in 'A' schedule property and other relief. The plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.47 of 2001 in O.S.No.377 of 2004 to amend the original plaint stating that the 5th prayer, namely, declaring the alleged sale deed dated 27.08.2004, in favour of the 4th defendant, executed by the first defendant be declared null and void. The said amendment petition was allowed by the learned Judge after it has been opposed by the first defendant by way of counter statement. 3.Ag...
S.Ponnaiyan Vs. V.S.Rethinakumari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder to direct the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to expedite the Execution Proceeding in E.P.No.90 of 2010 in O.S.No.21 of 2010. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder has filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil against the respondents/defendants/judgment debtors for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.1,20,19,726/- as per statement of accounts with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000,00/- other relief. The plaintiff has filed 12 documents in order to establish the said case. The plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.458 of 2010 under order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit was allowed with costs. The order was passed on 13.08.2010. As per decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.21 of 2010, the plaintif...
Sankaran Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1.The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2008 made in W.P.(MD)No.1146 of 2008, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that he has entered into service in the year 1972. However, he has chosen to make application for change of date of birth only in the year 1992, i.e., after 20 years. The appellant had joined in the services of the Transport Department, which was under the control of the Government, in the year 1967 and subsequently, when the present State Transport Corporation was constituted, he has opted to join in the Corporation in the year 1972. Before joining in the Transport Department, it is stated that the appellant was in the military services. As per records from the military services, his date of birth has been entered as 24.10.1937. However, when he joined in the Transport Department in the year 1967, his date of birth has been entered as 02.06.1935. It is the ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »