Chennai Court December 2008 Judgments

Dr. S. Rajesh Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Healt ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1103

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The common prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the G.O.Ms. No. 215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007 and to annul Clause 68(d) of the P.G. Degree/Diploma for MDS for five year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) course in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental non-governmental self-financing and Government aided college prospectus 2005 as well as the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2.4.2008 and forbear the respondent from in any manner enforcing the bond as against the P.G. Diploma/Degree candidates for the period 2005-2008.2. The issue involved in all these writ petitions being one and the same, all the writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.3. The petitioners herein are Post Graduate Degree/Diploma holders in medicine in allied branches. The petitioners are admitted in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course 2005-2006 and the Diploma holders completed their two years Diploma course and the Degree holders also com...

Malini Srinivasan Vs. Canara Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad94

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. While W.P. No. 22120 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the interim order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 01.08.2008, passed in I.A. No. 754 of 2007 in U.R.A. No. 30 of 2007, W.P. No. 25047 of 2008 is to quash the final order of the said Tribunal, dated 25.09.2008, passed in U.R.A. No. 30 of 2007.2. First respondent bank (in short, 'the bank') sanctioned certain loan facilities to M/s.Concise Technologies Pvt.Limited, based upon the security given by a partnership firm, namely, M/s.Venyl General Industries, in which the writ petitioner was one of the partners. Since the said loan was not paid by Concise Technologies Pvt.Ltd., the bank filed a suit on the file of this High Court vide C.S. No. 33 of 1996, against the writ petitioner and ten others, claiming a sum of Rs. 43,42,180/-. Subsequent to the constitution of the Tribunals, the suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, and renumbered as T.A. No. 513 of 1...

K. Dinakaran Vs. the Secretary thendral Nagar Co-op. Building Society ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the short ground that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction in respect of the matters covered under the Co-operative Societies Act. This Commission has already taken a view that the Consumer Fora have got jurisdiction to entertain the complaints even as against the Societies. 3. Hence the order of the District Forum is set aside and he matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal. The complainant shall file a memo on 19.1.2009 before the District Forum by enclosing the copy of the order passed by this Commission. Thereafter, the District Forum shall dispose of the complaint within a period of four weeks. 4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. No cost....

World Wide Brands Inc. Vs. Smt. Dayavanti Jhamnadas Hinduja,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2009(2)310

ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitions are filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s. World Wide Brand Inc, against the order dated 15.03.2006 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissing O.A. Nos. 15-20/2005/TM/CH.2. The facts that give rise to all the revision petitions are as follows:Smt.Dayavanti Jhamnadas Hinduja, Smt. Janaki Madanlal Hinduja, Smt.Veena Rajendra Hinduja and Smt. Nalini Dinesh Hinduja, partners of a registered partnership firm, trading as M/s. Central Wearhouse at Bangalore had filed the following applications under Class-25---------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Application No. Description of the Mark---------------------------------------------------------------1. 597843 Camel Collection withfor registration---------------------------------------------------------------2. 597845 Camel Trophy AdventureWear---------------------------------------------------------------3. 597842 Came...

New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. Rep. by Its Secretary and Manager (Financ ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ641

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point argued in this appeal is that more than one year has elapsed between the issuance of the last notification in the locality under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6, and in view of the same, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed and the learned Judge of the writ court erred in law by not quashing the same. It is also stated that records were not properly perused by the learned Judge and an additional argument has been advanced that there are manipulations in the records. However, such a plea was not taken before the learned Judge of the writ court nor any such ground has been taken in the memo of appeal. In view of such a stand being taken, this Court on 05.12.2008 passed the following order:1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The point which is raised here is that the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within a period of one year from the last...

T. Muthu Kumar Vs. the Regional Manager, Asset International, Chennai ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint is as follows: The complainant has completed higher secondary course in the year 2001. He intended to pursue higher studies in computer education. At that point of time, the opposite parties issued advertisements in leading dailies, wherein tall claims were made under the caption The Australian IT Industry is currently having a skill shortage of about 35000 IT professional, with a question Want to be a part of the solution and thepamphlets, Prospectus and the Brochures, Diploma in Information Technology, Software Development, A 16 month programme that begins in India and ends in Australia (Melbourne City) issued jointly by AITCI, Australian IT Career institute and Asset International, Chennai. The complainant after going through the above advertisement has opted to join the said course. According to the prospectus of the opposite parties, it was proclaimed therein that they intended to offer education for employment and a...

The Secretary, K-1340, Kalikulam Primary Agricultural, Sanarpalayam 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 main ground raised in the above appeal is to the effect that the complainant shall avail remedies only by approaching the authorities prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The law is already settled by this Commission by rejecting the similar contentions in FA.Nos.634/2006 to 636/2006 dt.15.11.2007. By following the above principles this appeal is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost....

Raj Kumar Khemka Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Finance, Rep. b ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad143

ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been preferred by the borrower/guarantor, raising common question of law, pursuant to common proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the DRT')-I, Chennai. Therefore, they were heard together and decided by this common order.2. The borrower in these cases is NEPC Agro Foods Limited writ petitioner in W.P. No. 23660 of 2008. The lender is M/s. Janata Sahakari Bank Limited (first respondent in W.P. No. 23660 of 2008 and second respondent in W.P. No. 9930 of 2008) (for short, 'the Co-operative Bank'), which is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner-Raj Kumar Khemka (in W.P. No. 9930 of 2008) is the guarantor. The respondent-Co-operative Bank, having given certain credit facilities to the borrower, it initiated proceedings against the borrower before the Co-operative Court No. I, Mumbai and the dispute came to be dismissed by order dated 1.3.2006. Against...

Rajamanickam T. Vs. Binny Ltd. (B and C Mills) and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ142Mad

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Appellant/workman has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the order passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18519/1990, setting aside the award of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 317/1985, ordering reinstatement.2. Appellant was employed as a Fitter in Engineering Department of the first respondent mill on May 22, 1958. As a result of strike, the respondent Mill was closed from January 14, 1984 till December 28, 1984. Thereafter, the Mill started functioning from December 29, 1984. On reopening of the Mill, the appellant, along with several others, was asked to report to Weaving Department on December 29, 1984, but the appellant did not report for work on that day. As the appellant did not report for work for eight consecutive working days, the management terminated him from service. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the III Additional Labour Court, Madras, ...

Addl. Director, Cghs and Others Vs. S.S. Ramachandran

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 with a direction that the opposite parties should reimburse a sum of Rs.12153/-, which was payable for the medical expenses incurred by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 3. The present appeal is filed, wherein a specific ground is urged to the effect that the District Forum has not considered the terms and conditions of the scheme, which proceeds to the effect that the Government shall reimburse only the rates as fixed in the package deal / rates. 4. We have perused the materials available on record. 5. In the version filed by the opposite party, it is clearly mentioned about the admissible rates, as well as the rates claimed by the complainant. The opposite parties took a stand that the admissible rates were already paid and the balance amount o...