Chennai Court March 2014 Judgments
R. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Dr. Isaac Newton Rajkumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon an ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum Dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.128/2000, dated 29.10.2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant met with a road traffic accident on 02.08.1998 at Chennai and has sustained fracture Both Bone Right Leg with compound injury. Right knee with fracture shaft femur, right knee with patellar retinacular and was admitted to 2nd opposite party hospital for treatment. The 1st opposite party treated the patient. The com...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Guhapriya Vasudevan and Others Vs. Tmt. Jayammal and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties 2 and 3 prefer an appeal in F.A.No.869/2010 and the appellant / 4th opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.250/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.79/2001, dated 14.10.2010. These appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 2 , 3 and 4 have filed these two appeals separately against one and the same order passed by the District Forum, Namakkal in CC.No.79/2001 in F.A.No.869/2010 by opposite parties 2 and 3 and in F.A.No.250/2011 by the 4th opposite party. 2. The complainant / 1st Respondent filed a complaint agains...
Tag this Judgment!Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S. Ganapat ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
(The complainants filed a complaint before the Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.17,92,780.70 towards the settlement of the insurance claim together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and for loss and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders :) A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1. The complainants praying for Rs.17,92,780.70 towards settlement of insurance claim with interest for the loss of goods and to Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainants is briefly sta...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Copper Anode, Sulphuric Acid, Phosphoric Acid falling under Chapter Headings 7402, 2807 and 2809 respectively of the CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input service. In the present appeal, the issue involved is whether the CENVAT credit relatable to samples taken for testing within the factory is liable to be reversed. The adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs.8,501/- wrongly taken towards removal of sample on inputs for the purpose of testing during the period from March 2005 to December 2005 along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned counsel submits that the issue is a recurring nature. He submits that the tested samples of copper concentrate, after testing, fed into the primary smelter and therefore the allegation of the Department that the te...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai Iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
1. The applicant has filed a miscellaneous application for change of cause title insofar as the name of the appellant would be M/s.Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. instead of M/s. JKM Daerim Automotilbes Ltd. In support of the application, the appellant has filed an affidavit stating the details of the change of cause title and also the order of the Honble Madras High Court. 2. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the records, the application for change of cause title is allowed. Registry is directed to amend the cause title as M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. instead of M/s. JKM Daerim Automotilbes Ltd. in all future correspondences. The miscellaneous application is allowed. 3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in this case is whether interest is payable under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the differential duty paid on supplementary invoices consequent to price increase. I find that the Honb...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported 285 nos. of used second-hand photocopier machines under the cover of Bill of Entry No. 518367 dated 31.7.2007. The adjudicating authority held that the importation of used second-hand photocopier machines are restricted in nature and import licence was required. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value and enhanced the value as certified by the Chartered Engineer under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and also confiscated 285 nos. of second-hand photocopiers and imposed redemption fine of Rs.5,75,000/- and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that they are not challenging the valuation and the licensing part. He fairly submits that this Tribunal consistently reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 15% and 5% respectively of the value. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a). Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Sai Copiers 2008 (22...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai Ii Vs. M/S. A.S. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to recover only Rs.1,12,105/- as against the demand of Rs.3,93,862/-. The learned AR submits that the demand was raised on the basis of the Honble Supreme Courts decision insofar as the respondent availed the credit on the wire rods and used in the conversion of wires for the period 29.5.2003 to 4.12.2003 which can be treated as excise goods. 2. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (224) ELT 495 dropped the demand on the identical issue in view of the amendment to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules and Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 which has clarified that retrospective amendment is aimed at regularizing availment of credit on conversion of wire rods. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:- 5. On perusal of the record we find that the Board Circular dated 26-7-2006 gave the clarification on t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Niketon Montessori School Vs. State Human Rights Commission of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.30880 of 2002 Kamala Niketon Montessori School rep by its Correspondent Mrs.Geetangali Sathyamoorthy .petitioner versus 1.State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu rep by its Registrar, 35, Thiru-vi-ka Salai, Chennai-14. 2.Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu Trichy No.2, RMS Building, Thillai Nagar Main Road, Tiruchirapalli. 3.Bernadine Madeen 4.Milenda Renavanhaltren 5.M.V.Palanichamy .Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in ID.No.54 of 2003 dated 13.07.2005 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Suresh Kumar for M/s.La Law For Respondents : Mr.R.Sundaram for R1. M/s.G.Ramapriya for R2 to R5. No appearance. ORDER Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Human Rights Commis...
Tag this Judgment!C.Jagan Vs. Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:26. 03.2014 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.7307 of 2014 C.Jagan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Chennai-600 008 2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Regional Office, Salem-636 016 3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., TASMAC Vellore-632 001 ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent passed in his proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.A2/1225/CV/2013 dated 27.11.2013 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits from the original order of dismissal dated 22.06.2011 within a time limit as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Sathiamurthi For Respondents .. Mr.S.Muthuraj,G.A. ORDER The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!1.K.Vijaya Vs. 1.Chandra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2006 and CMP(MD)No.683 of 2006 1.K.Vijaya 2.Kaliyamurthy : Appellants/Defendants versus 1.Chandra 2.Rajendran : Respondents/Plaintiffs Prayer This second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2005 made in A.S.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, as confirmed the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.319 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam. !For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Senthil ^For respondents : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi :JUDGMENT Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2005 made in A.S.No.27 of 2003 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.319 of 1998, dated 27.11.2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kumbokonam. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »