Chennai Court February 2014 Judgments
Uma Devi and Another Vs. the Officer In-charge and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
V. Periya Karuppiah, Member (Judicial): 1. Amendment carried out. Amended copy of Original Application is filed. Both the first applicant and the 5th respondent are present before this Tribunal. The learned counsel Ms. S.Kalaiselvi representing M/s F.X. Eugene and G.Thaveethu, counsel for the applicants and Mr. M.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submit that the applicants and the 5th respondent are willing to go for a counselling in order to enter into a compromise between them. Accordingly, the first applicant and the 5th respondent entered into a counselling at our chambers in our presence and also in the presence of the learned counsel for the applicants, 5th respondent and learned Senior Panel Counsel along with learned Assistant JAG Officer. At the end of the counselling, they have entered into a compromise and they filed a joint memorandum in the afternoon, before Tribunal. The Joint Compromise Memorandum has been read over to the first applicant who represents on...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar (Masthri) Vs. N. Meenal and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
(The complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellant / 2nd opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.931/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.204/2010, and the appellant / 1st opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.1165/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.204/2010 dated 22.02.2011.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants in both the appeals. 2. The 2nd opposite party and 1st opposite party have filed separate appeals in F.A.No.931/2011 and F.A.No.1165/2011 respectively against the same order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.204/2010, dated 22.02.2011 3. Since the both the appeals arose against the impugned order in CC.204/2010 by the District Forum, Coimbatore filed separately by the opposite parties 1 and 2 these two appeals are taken up t...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Epc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
1. In this case, the appellant was providing a few taxable services and was registered under service tax laws from 2001 onwards. During the audit of their accounts held in May 2007 short payment of service tax was pointed out by the audit team on three grounds namely,- (i) tax not paid on amount billed and payments received in respect of a few invoices; (ii) non-payment of tax on advance receipts for rendering tax; (iii) non-payment of tax on import of technical know-how, namely drawings from joint venture partners abroad under provisions of section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. 2. When these issues were pointed out, appellant paid entire tax liability along with interest. Thereafter, a show cause notice dt. 1.4.2008 was issued for imposing penalty under section 76 for contravention of provisions of section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 during the period 2006-07. On adjudication a penalty of Rs.5,76,417/- has been imposed on the appellant under the said provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Jancy Beula Esther Vs. V.K.Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12. 02.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P.[NPD]. No.3325 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Jancy Beula Esther ... Petitioner/Defendant .. Vs .. V.K.Selvaraj ... Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi, in E.P.No.3 of 2010 in O.S.No.24 of 2004 allowing the Execution Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan For Respondent : Mr.Su.Srinivasan - - - - - ORDER The Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.24 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur, is the petitioner in the present revision petition. The Decree Holder in the said suit is the respondent herein.2. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement for sale. The prayer in the plaint was couched in such terms that the defendant should be directed to execute the s...
Tag this Judgment!Savithri Ammal Vs. M.A.Gopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.R.P.No.531 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 Savithri Ammal ..Petitioner versus M.A.Gopal Naidu ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 22.08.2005 and the consequential order dated 31.08.2005 passed in I.A.No.114 of 2004 in A.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri. For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan **** ORDER The respondent herein / plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.424 of 1983, on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri against the revision petitioner herein / defendant to grant permanent injunction against the defendant, her men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment of suit property. 2.The revision petitioner herein / defendant had file...
Tag this Judgment!Marg Constructions Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :12. 02.2014 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM T.C.A.No.977 of 2006 and T.C.M.P.No.1560 of 2006 MARG Constructions Ltd., 501, Apex Chambers, 20, Thiagaraja Road Chennai 17 rep. By its Managing Director Mr.G.R.K.Reddy ... Appellant -vs- The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle IV(1), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034 ... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 24.03.2006 in ITA No.023/MDS/2005. For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.V.Shyam Sundar For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.237/Mds/2005 dated 24.03.2006, for the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.Nallak Gounder Vs. K.C.Kathirvel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12. 02.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH S.A.No.1148 of 2004 K.P.Nallak Gounder ... Appellant Vs. K.C.Kathirvel ... Respondent PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure code against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001 made in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 22.07.1999 made in O.S.No.440 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam. For Appellant : Mr.P.V.Ramachandran For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Vasanthakumar JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001 made in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 22.07.1999 made in O.S.No.440 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.2. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the original suit is referred as appell...
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai Vs. Kotteeswaran Alias Kotti Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12. 02.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (NPD) No.38 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 Elumalai ... Petitioner vs. Kotteeswaran @ Kotti Naicker ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 12.03.2012 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2010 in E.P.No.54 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2005 by the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpattu. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raghavan ORDER The tenant, who suffered an order of eviction on the ground of willful default and bonafide requirement for demolition and re-construction in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2005, which came to be confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.22 of 2008, which again came to be confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.2293 of 2009, faced execution of the order of eviction in E.P.No.54 of 2009.2. Citing the pendency of an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Distri...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Boar ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.225/2000, dated 23.04.2007.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The deceased complainant, ex-service man purchased a house in the year 1991 in C-21 at Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme with plot area 162.58 sq.ft from the opposite party for the fixed cost of Rs.1,32,200/- and after paying initial deposit of Rs.41,200/- and paying monthly installments including maintenance charges and received the key for possession on 20.1.1995 found that the construction of the house was incomplete and in damaged condition which is deficiency of service and thereafter having addressed many letters no response was made to rectify the defects and thereby the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Kikani Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore and Comm ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
1. There are two appeals being considered in this proceeding. One is filed by the assessee and the other is filed by Revenue. Both the appeals are filed against the same impugned order and hence being considered together. 2. The assessee-appellant is an exporter of cotton yarn to various European countries. They were paying commission to certain agents abroad for canvassing orders. On such service of agents received and commission paid, appellant was not paying service tax during the period Nov 04 to Sept 06. Revenue was of the view that on such service received from persons located abroad, assessee-appellant should have paid service tax as per the provisions of rule 2(1) (d) (iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. When the matter was pointed out to the assessee-appellant, they paid service tax along with interest for the period 16-06-05 to Sept 06 totaling to tax amount of Rs.5,74,831/- and interest of Rs.23,197. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 09-05-08 for demanding service ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »