Chennai Court December 2012 Judgments

R. Sankarappan Vs. Elango

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

(This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 12-12-2012 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:) J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.963/2009, dated 25-01-2011, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that, he purchased a packet of Aavin Milk from the store of the opposite party and the MRP printed on the milk packet was Rs.10.25ps., and the complainant gave Rs.11/- to the opposite party, but the opposite party refused to return the balance of Rs.0.75ps., and hence the complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service, and praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a some of Rs.1,025/- towards expenses for the lawyers notice and to return Rs.0.75ps. received from the complainant and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment ...

Commissioner of Customs (import-sea), Chennai Vs. M/S. Pratham Impex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dismissing the stay application, I take up the appeal for disposal. 2. This appeal is by the Department. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported 500 kilograms of L-Argenine and filed a Bill of Entry on 21.11.2011 declaring the goods as L Argenine, not for medical use, that the Bill of Entry was assessed on second check basis with a direction to obtain NOC from the Assistant Drugs Controller, Chennai before clearance of the goods, that the importer could not obtain such NOC and hence submitted a representation dated 7.3.2012 to the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport - Import) and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group - II), Customs House, Chennai seeking release of the goods in view of its limited shelf life and in the light of the Honble High Courts judgment dated 23.2.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 1559/2010 (Drugs Controller General and A...

Container Tea and Commodities, Represented by Its Partner Vs. Commissi ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the respondent in C.No.V/BAS/15/144/2009-S.T.ADJ and quash the order Sl.No.07/2012 (Commissioner) dated 30.10.2012 passed therein.) This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the respondent in C.No.V/BAS/15/144/2009-S.T.ADJ and quash the order Sl.No.07/2012 (Commissioner) dated 30.10.2012 passed therein. 2. The matter relates to an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem under the provisions of Service Tax, Finance Act 1994. A show-cause notice was issued stating as follows:- "02.07. On analytical study of activities of CTandC, it is observed that they have rendered various services for the exporters to promote their business in overseas. Therefore, it appears that service rendered by CTandC for the promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced by their clients are squar...

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coi ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree, dated 24.11.2011 and made in M.C.O.P.No. 1089 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District cum Session Judge), Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.) 1. On 28.12.2009, while one Mr.V.Dhandapani, was travelling in a two wheeler, bearing Registration No. TN 37 AJ 7373, and proceeding from West to East on the Coimbatore to Avinashi main Road, about 11.45 am., near Residency Hotel, Coimbatore and opposite to Visco Tower, a State Transport Corporation Bus, bearing Registration No. TN 38 N 1837, driven by its driver, in the same direction, dashed against the motorcyclist from behind. He sustained multiple and grievous injuries. The injured was rushed to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore and thereafter, referred to Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where he succumbed to the injuries, on 29.12.2009 in the Government Hospital. A case in Crime No. 384 of ...

M/S. Sbq Steels Limited Vs. M/S. Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited and An ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)838

(PRAYER: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with section 9(ii)(e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass an order of injunction restraining the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent from presenting the cheques bearing Nos.688426 (dated 01.01.2012), 688429 (dated 01.04.2012) to 688460 (dated 01.11.2014) in all totalling 33 Nos pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings.) This original application has been filed praying for an injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from presenting a total number of thirty three cheques bearing Nos.688426 (dated 01.01.2012), 688429 (dated 01.04.2012) to 688460 (dated 01.11.2014) for collection/encashment pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings. 2. The averments made by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the application, can be briefly stated as follows: i) The applicant M/s.SBQ Steels Limited, having its Registered office in Chennai, has established a steel plant in Andhra Prade...

Watchdata Technologies Pvt. Ltd Singapore, Rep. by Its Director Yu Zhi ...

Court: Chennai

M/s.Sharon Solutions Ltd., have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only) as damages by pleading, that the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The suit is filed against defendants / respondents, who do not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The suit has been filed in this Court, by pleading that 3rd and 4th defendants have ventured into establishing their own business in the same field as that of plaintiff in gross transgression and blatant breach of the terms and commitments agreed upon by the 1st defendant under the two Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) dated 20.12.2004 and 21.12.2005 and the non disclosure agreement dated 15.03.2007. 3. In Para 19 of the plaint, it is pleaded by the plaintiff / non applicant, that the defendants having achieved their collective mission in an unholy manner by entrenching upon the business substratum of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant by way of adding in...

K. Bharathi Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(6)CTC797; 2013WLR267

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto against the third respondent requiring him to show the authority to hold the Office of Judge of the Madras High Court and consequently declare that he is not entitled to continue to hold the said Office.) V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practising in this Court and who is also the State Convener of Democratic Advocates' Association, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto, questioning the authority of the third respondent to continue in Office. 2. Heard Mr.K.Bharathi, the petitioner-in-person. 3. The third respondent belonged to the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tamil Nadu. His name was recommended for elevation to the Bench of this Court by the Collegium of Judges of this Court. After the approval of the said recommendation, by the Collegium of the Supreme Court, the third respondent was...

Tamil Nadu Ex Servicemen's Corporation Limited rep. By Its General Man ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No. 27240 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No. 280 of 2001 and quash the exparte award dated 6.3.2007 made therein. Writ Petition in W.P.No. 27241 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.A.No. 491 of 2010 in I.D.No. 280 of 2001 and quash the order dated 13.7.2012 made therein.) ORDER 1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner is owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioner was established for the benefit of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner is awarded contract by various companies for supply of labour. In turn, the petitioner deploys ex-servicemen or the dependents of the ex-servicemen to the required places. 2. The State Express Transport Corporation also awarded c...

P. Ramar and Others Vs. the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Cor ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.29502 of 2012 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Assistant Engineer/Electrical by internal selection, with all consequential benefits pursuant to by letter No.000729/2/G.55/G.551/2012-1 dated 27.01.2012 of the second respondent. Common Order: The petitioners are now working as Helper-cum-Meter Reader in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. They rendered long service as contract Helper and they are absorbed as Regular Helper-cum-Meter Reader. All of them are possessing B.E. qualification. They are absorbed as a regular employee in the post of Helper-cum-Meter Reader on various dates since they are in possession of B.E.qualification, they also made applications to consider them under internal selection for the post of Assistant Engineer(Electrical), when the Chief Engineer(Electrical) sent a letter dated 27.01.2012 to all the Superi...

R. Sankarappan Vs. C.M. Ibrahim Managing Partner Express Construction ...

Court: Chennai

ORDER 1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicants for grant an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant his men, agents, staff, servants or any person or from demolishing the property. 2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,57,800/- (Rupees Forty one Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against the second defendant. Defendant No.1 has been impleaded as a party, in view of the intimation sent by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff, that he has sold the property to the defendant No.1. However, no relief is claimed against the defendant No.1. Nor there in the prayer for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is not disputed that the suit is only for recovery of money and not with respect to property. 3. Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC reads as under:- "Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise— (a) that any property in...