Chennai Court February 2012 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.
The Secretary C.L. Spl. 169 Ottai Vanoor Primary Agricultural Cooperat ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
(The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to refund Rs.22893.90/- alongwith interest at 7.5% p.a., alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of RS.1000/-. 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.23.7.2010 in CC.No.2/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.1.2012. 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. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainant, being a member of the 1st opposite party society, obtained agricultural loan on three occasions, undertaking to pay the same, after harvest of sugarcane, and the agricultural loans we...
M/S. Pure Trading Co. Ltd and Others Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Shri S. Venkatachalam, Ld. Advocate appearing for all the five appeals states that these cases were handled by a excise consultant earlier and he has been engaged to defend these cases at a later stage. He finds that the most relied upon documents listed in the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice other than the statements were not given to the appellants. As a result, a very sketchy reply was submitted in response to the show cause notice and the appellants have not been able to defend themselves adequately in the absence of relied upon documents and particularly those document based on which the quantification done. He also states that the appellants have made a predeposit of Rs. Five lakhs and they would not be seeking refund of the same in the event when the request for remand of the cases is allowed for enabling them to get the copies of the relied upon documents and making fresh submission before the origi...