Chennai Court February 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.
The Manager, M/S. Tiles N. Style Vs. Sheela Victor and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
(The 1st Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the order, the appellant/ 1st opposite party filed this appeal praying for set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.880/2009, dated 11.10.2012.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent / complainant purchased W.G.Elegant Cubicle 42 x 42 for a sum of Rs.1,16,457/- from the 1st opposite party on 5.3.2009. From the date of purchase the entire bathing set did not work properly. The water was flowing through all pipes when the complainant opened the pipe and therefore the complainant was not able to use all the pipes for a month and even after repair the water flow was not proper. When water was flowing without pressure the opposite party asked the complainant to change the pressure pump. Even then the water did not flow with full pressure. ...
M/S. Dollar Biscuit Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits. They removed inputs as such on payment of duty under the cover of central excise invoice on transaction value. Subsequently, during verification of the records, the central excise officers found that they are also issuing commercial invoice in respect of removal of the said inputs showing excess value than the central excise invoice. A show-cause notice dated 30.4.2004 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs.1,03,202/- for the period July 2000 to March 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.15,570/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount. A further penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The learned representative of the appellant submits that there was excess payment of Rs.14,780/- which may be adjusted against the present demand. He furt...
Electro Graphics Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No.22 dt. 21.7.2004 for clearance of 116 pieces of goods declared as "Used Photocopiers Copying Assembly". On preliminary examination, it was seen that the goods were used. Therefore, with the help of specialists dealing in photocopiers, the goods were examined to record the nature of goods and its age. The said specialist certified that the units were sub-units (incomplete units) and the value of the machine was Rs.5000/- per Medium Duty Machine and Rs.8000/- for Heavy Duty Machine and the assessable value was worked out backwards from these figures and arrived at accordingly. The age of the machine parts could not be ascertained by the specialist. During the relevant time, there was prohibition on import of used goods except capital goods. Also used capital goods were allowed to be imported freely only if life of the goods were not more than 10 years old. Further there was a dispute going on between trade and the department on the issue whether ph...
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Varizon Data Services India P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. The respondent was engaged in the business of providing Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) till 16-05-08 and paying service tax accordingly. They were also engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) which became taxable from 16-05-08. On 27.6.08, they applied for common registration of all their premises for ITSS and BAS. The centralized registration certificate was granted on 23-06-09. Respondents took Cenvat credit of service tax paid on services received by them after the date of 16-05-08 and claimed refund of such credit under provisions of Rule 5 of CCR 2004. Revenue was of the view that respondents could not have taken cenvat credit prior to the date of registration and therefore denied credit on services received prior to 28-05-2008 after giving an allowance of 30 days for working without registration as per relevant Rules. Thus, they denied service tax for services received from 16-05-08 to 27-05-09 for the reason that for this period credit was taken...
Hema Ammal Vs. Ganapathy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.02.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH S.A.No.824 of 2004 1.Hema Ammal 2.Vasanthi Ammal 3.Malathi Ammal 4.Gayathri Ammal 5.Radha Ammal 6.Jayanthi Ammal .Appellants versus 1.Ganapathy Gounder 2.Saroja Ammal .Respondents Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 19.06.2003 made in A.S.No.6 of 2003 on the file of Additional District-cum-Fast Track Court, Tindivanam reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2001 made in O.S.No.429 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur. For Appellants : M/s.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam For Respondents : No appearance. JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.203 made in A.S.No.6 of 2003 on the file of Additional District-cum-Fast Track Court, Tindivanam reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2001 made in O.S.No.429 of 1995 on the file of District Mun...
Nagarathinam Vs. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :06. 02.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH S.A.No.98 of 2001 1.Nagarathinam 2.Adhiyaman 3.Senthamil Selvi 4.N.Pari .. Appellants Vs. Rajagopal .. Respondent Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 29.07.1999 made in A.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of Additional District Court, Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 made in O.S.No.98 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai. For Appellants : M/s.S.Parthasarathy, Sr.Counsel for Mr.S.Sounther For Respondent : M/s.A.K.Sriram for G.M.Syednurullah Sheriff JUDGMENT The appellants who are the defendants in the suit filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 29.07.1999 made in A.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of Additional District Court, Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 made in O.S.No.98 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Court...
R.Kanagasanthi Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corpn
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :06. 02.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P. No.11522 of 2012 R.Kanagasanthi .. Petitioner Versus 1. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, No.25, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 0010.2. The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Thiruvannamalai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned order dated 09.07.2010, bearing Na.Ka.No.E1/5893/2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner in any suitable Class III/IV posts on compassionate basis. For Petitioner : M/ Sai Bharat and Ilan For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram ORDER This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 09.07.2010, denying compassionate appoin...
P.Saminathan Vs. Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :06. 02.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P. No.11543 of 2012 P.Saminathan .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.2. The Chief Conservator of Forests (SF) Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division Thiruvannamalai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to 1st respondent's impugned order in Ref. No.LL1/8364/2012 dated 16.03.2012, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Forest Watcher from the date on which his immediate junior was extended with such benefits, both service and monetary arising thereto. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Hidayadullakhan GP (Forest) ORDER This writ pet...
A.Pavadai Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06. 02.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.37980 of 2003 A.Pavadai ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kallakurichi, Villupuram.2. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Villupuram District.3. The Station House Officer, Chinna Salem Police Station, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.4. The Station House Officer, Attur Police Station, Attur, Salem District.5. The Correspondent, St. Little Flower Higher Secondary School, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.6. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, 7. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents [Respondents 6 and 7 are impleaded, vide order of this Court, dated 04.07.2012, in W.P.M.P.No.226 of 2012]. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of...
M/S. Heritage Property Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. By Stay Order No. 42504 and 42505/2013 dated 22.10.2013, the applicant was directed to predeposit an amount of Rs.35 lakhs and to report compliance on 30.12.2013. The applicant filed a modification application for extension of time to comply with the stay order. By Miscellaneous Order No.42917/2013 dated 30.12.2013, the Tribunal extended the period of compliance by further four weeks and directed the applicant to report compliance today i.e. 5.2.2014. Today, the learned counsel submits that they have filed another application for extension of stay order. He fairly submits that they have not deposited any amount due to acute financial crunch. 2. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing on behalf of Revenue strongly opposes this application filed by the appellant. 3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that earlier by Miscellaneous Order dated 30.12.2013, the Tribunal granted extension of time and the relevant portion is reproduced below:- T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »