Chennai Court March 2014 Judgments
C.Sivagama Sundari Vs. Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.03.2014 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P.No.15459 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 C.Sivagama Sundari .Petitioner versus 1.The Inspector General of Registration/ The Registrar General of Marriage Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Rottikara Street, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Marakkanam, Villupuram District. 4.L.Divakar 5.Muruganandham now functioning as the Manager, The District Registration Office, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 6.Sesha, Functioning as the Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Marakkanam, Villupuram District.Respondents Prayer: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Marriage Registration Certificate No.9 of 2010 dated 04.02.2010 as communicated in his proceedings No.45 of...
Tag this Judgment!K.Velusamy Vs. Registrar of Coop Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20. 03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.32143 of 2013 K.Velusamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.170, Periyar EVR Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. 2.The Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to drop further proceedings in respect of impugned charge memo in R.C.No.1023 of 2002/PA1 (4), dated 04.05.2009, and pass such further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivazhagan For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatachalam, GA ORDER The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent / the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai, to drop further proceedings in respect of impugned charge memo in R.C.No.1023 of 2002/PA1 (4), dated 04.05.2009, on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi Vs. State Rep.by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20. 03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI Crl.A.(MD)No.87 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 Chinnathambi .. Appellant/Single Accused vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thirupanandhal Police Station Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District Crime No.77 of 2009. .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.47 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Court - cum - Fast Track Court, Thanjavur. !For Appellant ... Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu ^For Respondent ... Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.47 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur.2. The epitome of the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. R.Murugamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-3-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT APPEAL No.2718 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 The Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighters Division 2nd Floor, New Delhi City Centre-II Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001 .Appellant vs R.Murugamalai .Respondent Writ appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 31.1.2012 made in W.P.No.10646/2011. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Maheswari SCGSC For Respondent : Mr.J.Ashok JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The official respondent in W.P.No.10646/2011, is the appellant and aggrieved by the final order dated 31.1.2012, made in the above said writ petition, by and under which, a Single Bench of this Court has ordered the writ petition with a direction to the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Chengalpattu Vs. S.P.Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :20. - 03 - 2014 CORAM: THE HONBLE TMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA A.S. No.57 of 1996 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 The Collector of Chengalpattu MGR District at Kancheepuram .. Appellant vs.1. S.P. Balakrishnan 2. C.P. Mary .. Respondents Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the order dated 23.09.1993 passed in O.S. No.49 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. For Appellant : Mr. Pasupatheeswaran For Respondent 1: Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, SC for M/s AL. Gandhimathi For Respondent 2 : No appearance JUDGMENT The Government, who was the first defendant in O.S. No.49 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has filed the present Appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff Balakrishnan is that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties along with the second defendant. The suit 'B' Schedule is part of 'A' schedule property. It is stated by him tha...
Tag this Judgment!D. Kanniappa Raja Vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance, Rep. b ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
(The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against opposite parties praying for certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant /complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2011, dated 16.08.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.03.2014, 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 The complainant is the appellant. His father Dhanapal insured the vehicle TN 39 AL 4093 Eicher lorry and he died on 22.10.2007. The complainant immediately informing the same to the opposite party for the purpose of name transfer along with no objection letter of his mother and his sister and thereafter since the opposite party assured for the same, he had paid premium for 3 years subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Vs. Jsw Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that appeal itself may be taken up at the time of stay petition hearing. Accordingly after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents paid Customs duty on the steel products exported out of India on the Shipping Bill. As evident from the appeal of Revenue that they paid duties on 26.6.08, 27.6.08, 9.7.08 and on 15.7.08 of FOB price. Subsequently, CBEC vide Circular No.18/2008-Cus. dt. 10.11.2008 clarified the computation of export duty by taking FOB price as cum-duty-price till 31/12/2008. Accordingly, the respondents filed refund claim on 30.1.09 on the differential amount paid in excess as per Board's circular. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of Rs.1,61,96,066/- as time-barred. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence Revenue filed this appeal before this Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1. A common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore both are taken up together for disposal. 2. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the penalty imposed under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records 4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the freight incurred in the inward receipt of coal in the assessees factory used in the generation of electricity and further partly used in the excisable goods and fed into the grid of Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The assessee had not reversed the credit used in the generation electricity to fed in the grid of TNEB. The assessees reversed the CENVAT credit used in the generation of electricity to TNEB only before the issue of the show-cause notice. ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kishore Kumar Gokaldas Developers and Promoters Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. Vide Stay Order Nos. 42902 and 42903/2013 dated 17.12.2013, the appellant was directed to make a predeposit of Rs. One creore within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 3.2.2014. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that on 3.2.2014 period of compliance was extended by further five weeks and directed the appellant to report compliance on 19.3.2014. She submits that due to financial difficulties the appellant could deposit only Rs. 50 lakhs. She further prays four weeks time for complying with the stay order. 2. In this context, the learned AR submits that the appellant had paid Rs. 25 lakhs yesterday by way of cheque which has not come to the Government account till today. It is contended that they have only deposited Rs.25 lakhs as per record. 3. After considering the submission of both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has not complied with the stay order dated 17.12.2013 even after granting extension of time....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Durga Nursing Home, Rep.by Its Director Dr. Durga Nursing Home and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellant / 1st opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.1070/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.35/2003, dated 16.08.2011, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.683/2012, for enhancement.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant in F.A.No.1070/2011. 2. The complainant is the appellant in F.A.No.683/2012. 3. The complainants wife had delivered a baby boy in the 1st opposite partys nursing home on 26.1.2003 and also undergone sterilization operation on 27.1.2003 and after discharge from the Hospital on 30.1.2013 in continuation of the medical care and post natal check up the complainants wife taken the 42 days old baby to the 1st opposite party nursing home on 10.3.2003 at 12 noon for administering the 1st dose of OPV and DPT as per the schedule...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »