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.
K. Tippu Sulthan Vs. the Manager, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insur ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.975/2009, dated 27-06-2011, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had taken a policy from the 1st opposite party on 28-6-2009 and all the required particulars were separately noted by the 1st opposite partys official and they obtained his signature on an unfilled application telling that they would furnish all the details in the form and the officials collected Rs.6,800/- towards two months premium. The policy dated 30-6-2009 was received on 5-7-2009 through courier, but the same had been delivered at his neighbors house. On perusal of the contents of the policy, he found that there were 5 discrepancies in the policy and he contacted the opposite parties for rectifying the defects, but the opposite parties did not oblige. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties...
Dr. (Mrs.) A. Indumathi Vs. Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd, Rep ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member The complaint is filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a qualified Ophthalmologist. The 1st opposite party is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act; and the 2nd opposite party is a Consultant Endocrinologist; and the 3rd opposite party is a Consultant Laparoscopic Surgeon under the 1st opposite party. 2. Sometime during May 2006, she felt some changes in her body, such as rapid increase in weight, Pigmentation and acne in the face, puffiness of face, fatigue, hypertension, joint pain, etc. she herself being a doctor, did few normal tests to rule out any endocrine disorder. The tests revealed that her Serum Cortisol level was high. Hence, she went to the 1st opposite party hospital where the 2nd opposite party is Consultant Endocrinologist and the 3rd opposite party is Consultant, Laparoscopic Surgeon. She was subjected to several te...
M/S. S Albert and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
P. K. Das, J. 1. The applicant has filed this application for condonation of delay of 109 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant received the order on 7.2.2012 and filed the appeal on 3.8.2012. It is submitted that their employee looking after the service tax matters left the job, as a result of which, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. In support of her contention, she filed an affidavit of the Director of the company. The learned counsel submits that the delay was caused due to the concerned employee leaving the job. 2. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the applicant had not stated the details of reasons for condonation of delay. The applicant had not cooperated with the adjudication proceeding. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (289) ELT 171 and Sadashiv Casting Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2002 (140) E...
J. Srinivasan and Others Vs. Cc (Airport and Cargo), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. Common issue involved in these applications and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. The applicants filed these applications for restoration of the appeals dismissed by Final Order No. 40137 - 40140/2013 dated 22.04.2013 for non-prosecution. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the applicants are individual and were in jail under COFEPOSA for a long time. The applicants engaged Shri Palani Kumar, Advocate to appear on behalf of them on 22.04.2013. He submits that Shri Palani Kumar, Advocate, by fax dated 22.04.13 requested for an adjournment which was rejected. It is submitted that due to improper steps taken by the Ld. Advocate, the applicants appointed the present Advocate to file these restoration applications and to appear before the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposes the ROA applications. She submits that the applicants obtained unconditional stay orders and ther...
The Special Officer / Secretary, Cuddalore Co-operative Primary Agricu ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in C.C.3/2008, dated 27-04-2010, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant who is a member of the opposite party bank obtained a loan from the opposite party bank on 30-03-2000 for purchasing a Tractor with Dozer for agricultural work. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. (Co-operative Department) No.70, dated 13-05-2006 waiving the loan obtained for agricultural purpose as on 31-3-2006. As on 27-12-2006, the outstanding amount (Principal and interest) was Rs.3,78,140/-. The opposite party refused to waive the loan amount as per G.O. which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to waive his outstanding loan amount and to pay costs. 3. According to the opposite party, the loan availed by the c...
Vasavi Jyothi Constructions, Represented by Its Managing Partners: P. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.685/2000, dated 23-12-2008, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the members of the complainant Residential Owners Association purchased flats from the opposite party and the opposite party collected Rs.30,000/- from each of the flat owners towards deposit of electricity board, metro water supply and sewerage board; whereas, the opposite party spent only Rs.10,000/- for the same and hence the members of the complainant association are entitled to refund of Rs.20,000/- each. Further, there are so many defects in the construction of the flat and there are deviations and violation of the terms and conditions and all these amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2.5 Lac to each member of the complainan...
M/S. the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Cce (St), Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1. The applicant is engaged in the business of providing Banking and Financial Services and they have been paying Service tax since 2001 when such service became taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. When Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was notified with effect from 10.09.2004, they claimed Cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on various equipment like computers, printers, lockers etc., purchased by them under cover of invoices dated prior to 10.09.04. The Revenue took objection for the reason that Rule 3 (1) and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 stipulated therein that credit could be availed under the new Rules for duty paid on or after 10-09-2004 and only on the strength of invoices issued on or after 10-09-2004 which is the date on which said Rules were notified. Therefore in respect of credit taken against invoices dated prior to 10.09.04, Revenue issued show cause notice for recovery of Cenvat credit taken. On adjudication and after first appeal, there is a dema...
J. Suresh Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented by Its M ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No.196/2010, dated 08-02-2011, dismissing the complaint.2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Washing Machine from the 2nd opposite party on 13-3-2008 for Rs.14,400/- with two year warranty. The washing machine frequently developed problems and the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service dealer used to attend and rectify the defects. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards service charges. However, the washing machine became defective and did not function on 16-11-2009, the alleged reason being loss of memory, and non-function of the dryer and the defect could not be rectified by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant demanded replacement of the washing machine by providing a new one on the ground that the washing machine had manufacturing defects; but the 3rd opposite party could not rectify the d...
Lotte India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar confectionaries. They avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Their factory is situated at Nellikuppam, Pondicherry. During the period Jan 05 to Aug 06, apart from excisable goods manufactured from the said factory, they were also getting sugar confectionaries manufactured from other manufacturers on job work basis situated at different places. Appellant supplied inputs like condensed milk, glucose and sugar directly from the suppliers to the job workers. After manufacture of sugar confectionaries by the job workers, the job worker paid the duty and dispatched the goods directly to various depots of M/s.Lotte India Corpn. Ltd.(appellant). In connection with transportation of inputs to the job workers premises and finished goods from job worker to various depots, the appellant made arrangements for such transportation and paid transportation charges al...
G. Bobban Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1. The appellant had provided man power supply service to M/s.Fenner India Ltd. Kochadi, Madurai during the period 16-06-05 to 31-03-09. The appellant had not paid service tax on such services in time. Therefore a show cause notice dt. 25.9.2010 was issued and adjudicated. On adjudication, a demand of Rs.5,43,501/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 77 and penalty of Rs.5,43,501/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. An amount of Rs.4,17,123/- paid by the appellant was appropriated against the demand. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.9.2012 set aside demand for the period 16.6.2005 to 30.4.2006 for the reason that the appellant was only an individual and during the said period service provided by a commercial concern only was taxable. The Commissioner (Appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »