Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurant P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
D.N. Panda: 1. All the three appeals came up for fresh consideration pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3494-3496 of 2004 filed by Revenue. While remanding the matter, Apex Court observed as under:- “The Tribunal without even adverting to the basic facts and without making any independent analysis of the agreement between the parties but only relying on the earlier decision in Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2002 (145) ELT 584 (T) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal has copiously referred to the findings in the said Judgment but without saying anything as to how those findings are applicable to the facts at hand. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the observation that the findings in the earlier case are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. It is needless to restate that the question whether they are related persons within the meaning of Section 4 9...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs) S. Sakthy, M.B.B.S. Dgo Consultant Obstetrician Gynecologist ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to issue the complainant with a proper full medical records pertaining to the treatment of his wife, and to pay RS.450000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cot of Rs.3000/-. 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.11.09.2008 in CC.No.314/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 24.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are challenging the order of the District Forum, in CC.No.314/2007, on the file of Coimbatore, wherein a direction has been issued against them, to pay a...
Tag this Judgment!S. BenjamIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Per D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appeal in this case was filed before the Tribunal on 12.1.2011. Impugned Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 20.2.2009 and appeal ought to have been filed by 19.5.2009. Accordingly, appeal preferred is with a delay of 603 days. 2. The appellant moved an application registered as C/COD/22/2011 for condonation of delay of aforesaid length stating that the signatory, Sri S.Benjamin was not in charge of day-to-day activities of the company M/s.Hi Bright Apparels (P) Ltd. He was living in Coimbatore which is 450 kms. from the factory. He used to visit the factory rarely. After receipt of the SCN, he was informed by one Sri T.Arunachalam that allegations in the SCN were not correct and he would take care of the case before the authority. When result of the adjudication required appeal, he informed Sri Benjamin (appellant) that appeal would be filed by him but that was not done. When Sri Benjamin met Shri Arunachalam dur...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Vs. N. Marichand
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to pay Rs.50000/- as advance, alongwith 24% p.a., interest, and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and expenses of Rs.25000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.18.03.2010 in CC.No.63/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant, alleging deficiency, negligence against the opposite party, since they have not delivered the vehicle, as per the booking order, filed the consumer complaint, claiming a total sum of Rs.11,23,368/-, further contending, that the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sastha Constructions Rep. by Its Proprietor V. Sreekrishnan Vs. K. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The 1st Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to handover the flat alongwith approved plan, to pay Rs.135000/- towards advance amount, to pay 18% interest on Rs.135000/- paid, alongwith compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, and cost of RS.10000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.07.2010 in CC.No.82/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 18.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainant, approached the District Forum, alleging negligence and deficiency, against the opposite parties /builders, claiming the following reliefs: 1. To direct...
Tag this Judgment!A. Babu Vs. the Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and An ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(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.21582/- being the cost of medical bill, alogwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 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.30.12.2010 in CC.No.391/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 19.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ appellant, being the beneficiary under a health insurance policy, covering the period 12.2.2008 to 11.2.2009, had taken treatment, for which he incurred an expenses of Rs.41,582/-, for which claim was made, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Singapore Airlines Ltd., Vs. K. Balasubramaniam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.07.10.2010 in CC.No.156/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party having suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, Coimbatore, in CC.No.156/2010 dt.7.10.2010, challenges the same, in this appeal, as appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant, who is a medical practitioner, being the member of Indian Medical Association, joined in the tour arranged by Amar Tours and Travels private Ltd., for which ticket...
Tag this Judgment!B. Premavathy and Others Vs. Regional Commissioner Employees Provident ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The appellants as Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to pay Rs.75000/- each, pay the pension arrears, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2009 in CC.No.365/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainants having failed in their attempt to get pension and other benefits, have come before this commission, as appellants. 2. The complainant by name Premavathy, was working as reeler in the 2nd opposite party mill, which was managed by its partners, opposite parties 3 and 4. The said Premavathy, joined in the PF scheme, an...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gangai Polymers Private Ltd. Vs. the Regional Manager, Oriental I ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(This complaint dt. 01.10.2003 filed against the 1st, 2nd and 4th opposite parties alleging deficiency in service, claiming Rs.15,43,853/- along with interest at 24% per annum from 19.6.2000 amounting to Rs.11,73,500/-, to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony and damages and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. This petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 18.01.2012, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This is a complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter called Act, claiming a sum of Rs.15,43,853/- based upon the policy for the loss caused in the fire accident with interest, amounting to Rs.11,73,500/-, for a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony with costs on the following grounds [in brief]. 2. The complainant, who was engaged in the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, State Bank of India and Another Vs. Sanath V. Shukla
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and to pay the 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.24.01.2011 in C.C.511/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.01.2012, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, Written Arguments of both side as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The challenges to the order is dated 24.01.2011 in C.C.511/2009, on the file of the District Forum, Chennai [North], wherein, a direction has been given to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »