Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 55 punishments otherwise than by force court Court: chennai Page 7 of about 124 results (0.209 seconds)

M/S. Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

..... appellant submits that the appellant paid an amount of rs.2,61,818/- for the purpose of filing appeal before the commissioner (appeals) under section 35b of the central excise act, 1944. he submits that the appellant s factory was closed down on 14.2.2001. it is submitted that the amount of rs.2,61,818/- was paid from the .....

The Branch Manager, Vs. 1.Rajendran

Court : Chennai

..... , billars gate opposite anna stadium, palmore road, nagercoil - 629 001. .. appellant vs 1.rajendran 2.thankam 3.rani .. respondents civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicle act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2010, passed in m.c.o.p.no.14 of 2010, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, ii .....

Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited Vs. Customs Excise and Service ...

Court : Chennai

..... process and for generation of power for captive consumption within their unit. according to the petitioners the imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty under section 18 of the customs act, 1962 and were allowed to be cleared as 'steaming coal". under concessional rate of duty. the invoice and agreement with the supplier also describes the coal as 'steaming non-coking ..... before the customs.excise and service tax appellate tribunal (cestat).the firs.respondent herein, together with stay application for waiver of pre-deposit under section 129 e of the customs act, 1962 and for stay of the operation of the order-in-original no.2 of 2014. pending the stay application, it is stated that the second respondent is taking coercive .....

Kumar Vs. State Rep by

Court : Chennai

..... respondent, the second respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner for the death of the child.11. in so far as compensation is concerned, the provisions of the motor vehicles act can be referred to so as to determine just compensation. in the following cases, the compensation on the death of the minor child has been granted as follows:- (i) manju ..... nadu slum clearance board, rep. by its chariman, madras-5), wherein, (p.sathasivam,j.) as he then was, held in that case, that the corporation is liable to compensate for acts of negligence. in that case, damages were claimed on the death of a girl aged about 17 years, who fell into the well and died. the court held that the .....

M/s. Udhayam Enterprises Ltd., Rep. by its Director, K.K.V. Sethuraman ...

Court : Chennai

..... . 7. upon notice, fedral bank limited, kerala, 1st respondent in its counter affidavit, has contended that the bank initiated proceedings under recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 vide o.a.no.1305 of 2000, in which, the petitioner, mr.k.k.v.seetharaman, his brother mr.k.v.k.haranath, petitioner's mother mrs.k.jhansi .....

John Vincent Versu Nancy

Court : Chennai

..... the commencement of the indian divorce (amendment) act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization ..... clearly amount to cruelty, mental agony and harassment meted out to the appellant. 12. since the parties are professing christian religion, section 10 of the divorce act, 1869, governing the grounds for dissolution of marriage, reads as follows:- 10. grounds for dissolution of marriage.--(1) any marriage solemnized, whether before or after ..... the respondent used to quarrel and torture the appellant by entertaining suspicion due to inferiority complex. even if there was a small wordy quarrel, she would act like a hysterical patient, thereby putting the appellant to mental agony and unnecessary hardship directly impacting on his official duties. again when there was a second .....

M/S.Soorya Weavers, Vs. J.P.Anthony Raj,

Court : Chennai

..... that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption under section 139 of the act and aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the private complainant preferred an appeal to the high court of judicature at bombay, which also dismissed the appeal ..... issued and the respondent/accused did not comply with the terms of such notice and, therefore, complaint under section 138 r/w 142 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, came to be filed. the trial court has acquitted the respondent holding that the appellant/private complainant failed to prove the liability and also holding ..... accused and, therefore, it is not a legally enforceable debt and having found that the private complainant failed to prove the ingredients of section 138 of the act, by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, dismissed the complaint and, thereby, acquitting the accused. aggrieved by the same, the private complainant .....

A.R.R. Trust Vs. Acit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in : (2006)280ITR152(Chennai)

..... land to start 2nd unit of the school. hence it cannot be aid that trust was existing for the purpose of earning profit.18. the decision of acit v. bal bharti nursery school (supra) rests on an altogether different facts. in that case, it was shown that secretary of the society had absolute power to refuse admission to any ..... the contents of the cit(appeals) order and submitted that diversion of funds was clearly proved by the cit(appeals). he then relied on the decision of acit v. bal bharti nursery school, 82 itd 71, where in case of diversion of funds, society was held not to be eligible for deduction under section 10(22). he also ..... any restriction regarding mode of investment of funds, such institutions are not required to invest the funds in the mode specified under section 11(5) of the income-tax act." thus it is clear that educational institutions are not required to make investments in any specified assets prescribed by any authority, which means, they can park their surplus funds .....

N. Rajendran Vs. the State of Transport Appellate Tribunal,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2008Mad156; (2008)2MLJ783

..... , violating article 14 of the constitution of india. keeping in mind, the legislative intent and the benevolent scheme, the provisions of section 104 of the act has to be read and interpreted to give the most beneficial interpretation and therefore, i am of the considered opinion that the grant of spare mini bus ..... objections to the proposal. as per section 101 of the act, notwithstanding anything contained in section 87, a state transport undertaking, may in the public interest operate additional services for the conveyance of the passengers on special ..... or any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. section 99 of the act deals with the preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a state transport undertakings. section 100 enables objectors or his representatives to submit .....

S. Muthuswamy Vs. Chief Engineer, Construction Works Branch, Southern ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1992)1MLJ121

..... set forth in the affidavit. in my opinion sufficient cause is shown to this court to make an order of reference under the relevant provisions of the act. the agreement between parties provides for referring the matter in dispute to arbitration. the agreement is binding upon the parties and hence in my view it should ..... agreements in question. thus according to the railways the dispute is not referable to arbitration.16. in order to attract the provisions of section 20 of the arbitration act, the following conditions must be fulfilled:(a) the parties must have a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between them;(b) the agreement was executed before the institution ..... compensation and that the recovery is illegal and that appropriating it against the compensation alleged to be payable by the railways under section 82-a of the railways act is absolutely unwarranted. the railways sent a reply, dated 11.7.1987 relying on clauses 11 and 12 of special conditions of contract and contended that .....