Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

Dr. E. Muralidharan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Secretary, Higher ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ417

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard Dr. E. Muralidharan in person, Mr. R. Vijay Narayan, learned senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.9.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-in-person was dismissed not on merit, but on the ground of maintainability. The ground of maintainability arises under the following facts.2. The appellant moved the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:(i) To injunct the 2nd respondent from continuing in the post of Director of the Institute during the pendency of the above writ petition;(ii) For ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (i) above and confirm the same after notice of motion; and(iii) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and...

The Principal, Annai Fathima Institue of Hotel Catering Administration ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellant herein is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the District Forum under the following circumstances:- According to the complainant, he has joined the course conducted by the opposite party namely Hotel Management and Catering Science. Duration of the course is two years. According to him, he has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards course fee and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards donation and he has signed certain blank papers. Later on, as he has not joined the course, the amount was not repaid and hence the complaint. 3. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that complainant has paid only Rs.15,000/- by way of course fee and out of which uniform worth about Rs.3,800/- was handed over on 27.07.2002 itself and when the course has commenced on 02.08.2002, the complainant has not joined the course and on the contrary on 05.08.2002 he has made a request for t...

Aircel Ltd., and Another Vs. Syed Oli, Managing Director, Dindugal Dis ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The first and third opposite parties are the appellants and the first respondent is the complainant and second respondent is the second opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the Mobile Phones purchased by the complainant. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and granted relief therein, as against which the present appeal is file. 3. The short question that is raised before this Commission is that even though the complainant is filed in his individual name by showing the Cause Title to the effect that he is the Managing Director of K.S.O.P. Traders, in reality, the complaint has to be construed as if it is filed on behalf of the Firm. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint itself ought not have been entertained since the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. We have peru...

The Special Officer, Uthamapalayam Vs. Tmt. R. Vanaja

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant has applied housing loan for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs before the opposite party and the same was sanctioned. The first instalment of Rs.80000/- was disbursed on 30.4.2001. Subsequently when the complainant has approached for the disbursement of the further instalments, the opposite party has refused to disburse the same. In the result, the complainant was constrained to complete the construction by raising loan from 3rd parties, by paying exorbitant interest, accordingly there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint seeking relief as stated therein. 3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by contending that there is a violation in the construction of the house at the initial stage and the time schedule is not adhered...

The Good Shepherd International School, Rep. by P.J. Thomas (Principal ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellant herein is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party under the following circumstances:- The complainant is a Ex-serviceman and retired as a major and residing at Bangalore. The complainants son who was admitted in 9th Standard in the opposite partys school during 2003. At the relevant point of time, the age of the boy was 16 years. At the initial stage, the complainants son faced certain problems from the foreign students and also condition of the hostel was not maintained in hygienic manner. The complainant has brought to the knowledge of the School Authorities about the various problems in the school to which the opposite party sent a communication on 12.11.2003 wherein it is stated that his son can directly meet School Authorities and discuss with the problems. The complainants son had certain ski...

The Senior Manager Indian Overseas Bank Tirunelveli Junction and Anoth ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

COMMON ORDER N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellants in FA.217/2006 are the opposite parties and the respondents therein are the complainants before the District Forum. 2. The complainants preferred a separate appeal in FA.289/2006, wherein the opposite parties are the respondents. 3. The complainants have approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service under the following circumstances. The complainants have availed locker facility from the opposite party from on 30.12.00 and later on availed a bigger size of locker bearing No.62, w.e.f.4.7.2001. The complainants have deposited about 55 sovereigns jewellery worth about Rs.3 lakhs in the locker. On 3.10.2003, when the locker was opened by the 2nd complainant, she was shocked to note that the jewels were missing. Immediately thereafter it was reported to the Assistant Manager and subsequently a complaint was also lodged with the local police as well as with the higher officials of the opposite party bank. Under the said circu...

The Secretary, Tvl. Sp.141-vilathikulam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Ba ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The District Forum has allowed the complaint with the directions to the opposite party to repay the amount which was paid by the complainant by way of deposit. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deposit could not be repaid due to the fact that the society was facing severe financial crisis and may seeks some more time to comply with the directions given by the District Forum. 3. In the light of the above statement, while dismissing the appeal, we are extending 4-months time to comply with the order of the District Forum. After compliance of the order passed herein, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the mandatory deposit which was deposited before this Commission. 4. The Appeal is dismissed with the above directions....

V. Kannappan and 19 ors. and ors. Vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ438

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to pay Pension according to the regulation of Pension scheme in view of Rule 2(ze), 2(zea), 35(i) and 35(ii) of Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.2. Briefly stated case of the Petitioners is as follows:(i) Petitioners were originally employed in Bank of Madura and served for more than 20 years in various Branches of Bank of Madura. During 1995, Bank of Madura sent a circular to implement Pension scheme of the employees of Bank of Madura and along with its regulations. Again another Circular dated 01.2.1996 was issued calling for options from the employees to opt for Pension scheme. Petitioners who were in service on erstwhile Bank of Madura have not opted for Pension scheme. Petitioners and some of the Bank employees were in a dilemma whether to opt for Pension scheme or to continue to contribute Provident Fund scheme. According to the Petitioners, they were under the impres...

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Kolkata and An ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The District Forum has allowed the complaint for the defects noticed in the Aquaguard Water Filter which was purchased during December-2002. The records discloses that the complainant has undergone suffering from October-2003 onwards during which period a lawyers notice under Ex.A2 was sent. The District Forum has passed an order by allowing the complaint with the direction that the opposite parties to rectify the defects in the Filter and payment of compensation of Rs.2500/- with costs. 3. Aggrieved as against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order of the District Forum is not based on evidence on record and even otherwise the appellants were not in a position to made necessary repairs in spite of the efforts taken by them subsequently they could not find out the correct ad...

Dr. K. Inbasekhar, M.D.D.M., Inba Heart Hospital, Nagercoil Vs. M. Sam ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is represented by the learned counsel and there is no representation for the respondent / opposite party. After notice is ordered, the counsel for the appellant has taken private notice indicating that the respondent shall appear on 11.11.2008. The said notice was received by the authorized person of the complainant / respondent on 26.10.2008. Thereafter the respondent / complainant has sent telegram to the Registry that he is not in a position to travel and prayed for an adjournment with a request to intimate the date of next hearing. On the basis of the said telegram, the registry has sent a notice, indicating the next hearing date as 26.11.2008. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent / complainant. 3. In the light of the above, we propose to dispose of the appeal based on the available records and the entire...