Chennai Court January 2014 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.
S.Prabakaran Vs. Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS W.P.No.34588 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 S.Prabakaran ..Petitioner versus 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Madras. 2.The Post Master General, Central Region, Office of the Post Master General, Department of Posts, Tiruchirappalli-620 001. 3.Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Office of the Post Master General, Department of Posts, Tiruchirappalli-620 001. 4.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Virudhachalam-606 001..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in order dated 18.11.2013 passed in Original Application No.295 of 2011 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai the 1st respondent herein whereby t...
D.Govindaraju Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 02.01.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P. Nos.25075, 25076, 25137, 26566 to 26568, 27714, 27715, 27727, 27883 & 27884 of 2010 D.Govindaraju ... Petitioner in W.P. No.25075 of 2010 R.Silambarasan ... Petitioner in W.P. No.25076 of 2010 G.Radhika ... Petitioner in W.P. No.25137 of 2010 P.Selvam ... Petitioner in W.P. No.26566 of 2010 R.Venkatesan ... Petitioner in W.P. No.26567 of 2010 R.Sasi ... Petitioner in W.P. No.26568 of 2010 A.Moorthy ... Petitioner in W.P. No.27714 of 2010 K.Venkatesan ... Petitioner in W.P. No.27715 of 2010 1. P.Ravichandran 2. K.Venkatesan 3. Santhi 4. K.Ayyakannu 5. M.Devarajan 6. K.Mahalakshmi 7. M.Pandian 8. P.Sivaperumal 9. M.Valarmathi 10.D.Rajavel 11.K.Kesavan 12.D.Venkatesan 13.M.Dhanasekaran 14.K.Saraswathi 15.P.Dhanamalli 16.L.Annamalai ... Petitioners in W.P. 17.C.Perisamy No.27727 of 2010 K.Mayakannan ... Petitioner in W.P. No.27883 of 2010 Alamelu ... Petitioner in W.P. No.27884 of 20...
R.Boopathy Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P(MD)No.4242 of 2010 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 R.Boopathy .Petitioner Vs 1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Karur District, Karur - 639 001. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies (CID).Erode - 638 001.Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Kai.Pa.No.K-2/252/2009, dated 26.11.2009 and quash the same. !For petitioner ..Mr.P.Subbaraj ^For respondents ..Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate :ORDER The only point arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the fiRs.respondent / District Revenue Officer, Karur, has any authority to impose fine on the offendeRs.who are accused of the offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC(RTCS) Orders 1982 r/w Section 7(...
M/S. Cholamandalam, Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cst, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Mathew John, J. 1. After hearing the stay petition for some time, we decided that both the stay petition and appeal may be taken up together for disposal because there is requirement of more detailed information for deciding the matter and the need for a denovo consideration by adjudicating authority was felt. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, appeal itself was taken up for hearing. 2. The appellant is providing General Insurance Service. They provide such insurance service directly to their clients and also through intermediaries ie., through insurance agents like Banks, NBFCs, Motor Vehicle Dealers, Garage Owners etc. 3. While selling insurance policies, Regulations laid down by the IRDA requires that for a prescribed period after receipt of the policy document by the insured, the insured should be given the right of refusing the policy. The appellants claim that in cases of such refusal, the appellants refund the insurance premiums along with the service tax c...
M/S. Mil Industries Ltd. Vs. Cst, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. Both the appeals are arising out of common order and therefore taken up together for disposal. After hearing the stay petition at length, we find that the appeals can be decided at this stage. Accordingly, after disposing the stay petitions, we take up the appeals for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Tax was demanded under the category Maintenance and Repairs Service for the period from October, 2004 to March, 2010. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubber lined goods. Apart from that, they undertake the process of rubber lining of steel tanks/vessels, steel pipes/fittings/flanges etc. supplied by the customers. In some cases the appellant rendered similar services at the customers premises. In both the cases, the appellants paid service tax on the labour charges. The dispute relates to the demand of tax on material portion. 4. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the Honble Delhi High Court in the recent decis...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›