Chennai Court March 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.
Ford India Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. The appellants have imported six vehicles of different models during the month of March 2007. They have imported another two vehicles out of the models already imported earlier during July 2007. The learned advocate for the appellants states that the first six vehicles were imported for certification purposes and the subsequent two vehicles were imported for testing purposes. According to him, these eight vehicles were supplied free of charge by M/s.Volvo Car Corporation. The impugned show-cause notice dt. 6.9.2007 was issued proposing enhancement of the value declared for all the eight vehicles, and violation of import licensing requirements was also alleged. Under the impugned order, three cars have been allowed being permissible to be imported by companies having foreign equity participation, and import of rest of the five vehicles has been held to be in violation of import licensing requirements. The value de...
Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Per D.N.Panda, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the consequence of Order-in-Original dt. 22.12.2008, the appellant carried grievance to the Tribunal submitting that composite contract for supply of elevators/escalators for residential and commercial building sizably involved material components and amounting to sale of goods without substantially involving providing of service and is not taxable under Finance Act, 1944 as commissioning and escalation service provided. 2. Moving the stay application, ld. Counsel submitted that at page 10 of the adjudication order, the quantum of service was depicted by the adjudicating authority from invoice and noticed that 15% of the contract value was claimed to be value of service and that was cum tax value towards erection and installation and hence service tax liability was discharged on that. The authority did not believe that 15% of the contract value shall be service element and imposed service tax to the extent of Rs.15,02,30,497/- followed by e...
The Branch Manager, M/S. Ing Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anothe ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
(The respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to settle the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- due on the insurance policy No.01112758, dated 8.5.2008 and Rs.15 lakhs due on the Policy No.01139638, dated 28.5.2008 to the complainants together with 16% interest from the date of the complaint till the date of settlement, to pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainants towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties, against the said order, this appeal is preferred for enhancement and praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.12.2010 in C.C.44/2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 05.03.2012, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT ...
Elangovan Vs. the Administrator Chengalvarayan Cooperative Sugar Mill
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
W.P.No.23605 of 2009 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to C.P.No.96 of 2002 on the file of the second respondent dated 16.11.2011 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order passed by the second respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.96 of 2002 dated 16.11.2011. The said claim petition was dismissed by the second respondent Labour Court as there was no pre-existing right regarding grant of backwages and that the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable.2. When the matter came up on 01.02.2012, this Court directed Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Sugar Mill to get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel filed a counter affidavit signed by the first respondent dated 22.02.2012.3. Heard the argumen...
The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs. Chenniappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment made in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 2002 dated 07.03.2005 on the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.29,700/- per acre to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for the lands acquired in Ingur village, Perundurai Taluk for the purpose of Small Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu [SIPCOT] in Ingur village, the Government has preferred this appeal.2. Facts in nutshell which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:-On the request of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TACID, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of 2.82.0 Hectares of lands = 6.96 = acres in R.S. Nos.140/1 to 4 [R.S. No.140/1 0.83.5 Hectare; R.S. No.140/2 0.65.0 Hectare; R.S. No.140/3 0.65.0 Hectare; R.S. No.140/4 0.68.5 Hectare] in Ingur village, Perundurai Taluk for SIPCOT. The Government considered the proposal of TACID and app...
R.Kalidoss Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.12225 of 2007: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders for reinstatement of the petitioners as per the award passed in I.D.Nos.40, 41, 42 and 43 of 1998 dated 12.12.2002 within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. Prayer in W.P.No.12225 of 2007: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarifi calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.Nos.40 to 44 of 1998 dated 12.12.2002 received by the petitioner on 22.5.2003, quash the same.COMMON ORDER1. The 1st Writ Petition is filed by the four workmen seeking for a direction to the respondents Transport Corporation having their Headquarters at Coimbatore to implement the award in I.D.Nos.40, 41, 42 and 43 of 1998 dated 12.12.2002 within a time frame. That Writ Petition was admitted on 9.4.2007.2. When that Writ Petition came up for hearing, as there was no proper representation on...
P.Anandarajan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
PrayerWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Se.Mu.O.No.Nil dated nil.01.2012 signed on 25.01.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus directing to quash the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Se.Mu.O.No.Nil dated nil.01.2012 signed on 25.01.2012 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was running a Bus Company in the name and style of Anand Roadways. working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State He was having a driving license bearing No.TN6519730000476, B.No.9085DT 30.12.1976 TN65ENT/DLR/COA/DLDXO:TN65Z/DLR/00002772010 DT 11.02.2010 issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority...
Dr.T.L.Ramachandran Vs. the Transport Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their men, agents or subordinates in any manner intercepting the petitioner's Benz Car No.PY 01 AY 2405 levying, demanding and collecting entry tax by invoking the power under the provision of Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. W.P.No.3722 of 2012:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their men, agents or subordinates in any manner intercepting the petitioner's Volkswagon Vento Car bearing No.PY 01 BP 4997 levying, demanding and collecting entry tax by invoking the power under the provision of Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.COMMON ORDER1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a comm...
S.Vedaraj Vs. the Senior Regional Manager.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, the second respondent herein passed in I.D.No.34 of 1996 dated 25.06.2003 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and continuity of service.ORDER1. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant in Amudham Angadi, Athanoor Village, run by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Nagapattinam Region, as per the order of the first respondent, in R.C.No.26816/78-A3 dated 21.01.1979. While so, the Manager (P&M), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.N.C.S Ltd.,') by his proceedings in R.C.No.4929/83 ED dated 29.07.1983 issued Recovery Order to recover a total sum of Rs.255.17/- from the petitioner on the allegation that shortage of rice, wheat and kerosene was noticed by the Assistant Manager (P&M) during...
Ms.Leo Coffee Grinding Works Vs. D.Mohanalakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 made in RCA.787 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 20.04.2004 made in RCOP.No.349 of 2000 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai.O R D E R1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.787 of 2004 dated 15.12.2009 in confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.349 of 2000 dated 20.04.2004 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.2. The Revision Petitioner herein was the respondent/tenant and the respondent herein was the petitioner/landlady before the learned Rent Controller.3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner/landlady before the Rent Controller are as follows:-The petitioner is the landlady. The petition property, viz., house, ground and pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »