Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Trichy Vs. P. Manick ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J.{Open Court} The Opposite party in COP No.115/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy, is the appellant herein. The complainant was allotted a house by the opposite party on 23/6/1999. A Lease-cum-Sale agreement was entered into between the parties on 28/6/99. The complainant paid Rs.11,655/- as advance interest. A and B certificate was issued to the complainant to avail housing loan. He paid the entire sum of Rs.3,30,269/- on 10/11/2000. Even before such payment, according to the opposite party, he called upon the complainant to take over the house on 10/8/99 itself. But the complainant refused to take over the house on 10/8/99 due to the reason that there were defects in the house. The complainant actually took delivery of the house only on 18/4/2002 after the alleged defects were rectified. The complainant went before the District Forum calling for a direction to the opposite party to rectify all the defects and hand over the house all...

A.P. Mohammed Ali Vs. State Through the Central Bureau of Investigatio ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(2)CTC370

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai to return the passport of the petitioner to enable him to undergo a travel to United States of America. 2. The petitioner, along with ten others, stands charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471, 475, 201, 218, 255, 258 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crime No. 2849 of 2004 on condition that he should surrender his passport and should not leave India without prior permission from the court. In compliance of the aforesaid condition imposed on him, the petitioner surrendered his passport bearing No. A8560020. Thereafter, he filed an application seeking relaxation of the condition imposed in the order of bail. The learned Additional Special Judge for C...

Muthiah Padayachi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Muthusamy,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ134

M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.07.1995, made in A.S. No. 65 of 1987, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Mettur, dated 11.02.1987, made in O.S. No. 9 of 19812. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit in O.S. No. 9 of 1981.3. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 9 of 1981, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs who are the respondents herein praying for a judgment and decree in their favour for possession and for mesne profits.4. The averments in the plaint are as follows:4.1 The suit property belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendant had entered into an agreement of sale of the property with the plaintiffs, on 28.02.1970, for the sale consideration of Rs. 18,750. The defendant was put in possession of the suit property consequent to the said agreement. The defendant had agreed...

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (a Govt. of India Enterprise) and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(242)ELT487(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent in W.A. No. 1562 of 2007 for quashing the Sale Order/Acceptance Letter No. MSTC/S/NLC/EA-14/2005-06/101/008 dated 1.4.2005 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same and direct the second and third respondents to return the amount of Rs. 163,49,96,511/- after deducting the amounts already received, with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.4.2005 to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that facts are disputed and they must be established before a court of law by adducing sufficient proof and that the writ court cannot grant the relief sought for. But, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge gave findings that the contract between the parties was void ab initio, that the appellant in W.A. No. 1488 of 2007 (respondent in the writ petition) had committed fraud and answered these questions in favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by that, W.A. No. 1488 of 2007 has b...

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Superintending Engineer, Vs. Mada ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj1465

P. Murgesen, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1997 made in A.S. No. 19 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1995 made in O.S. No. 431 of 1994 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin.2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 431 of 1994 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin for the relief of injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the transformer installed in front of his property.3. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.4. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Princ...

The Manager Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Madurai Vs. U. Dhanasekaran

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. (open court) 1. The appeal is against E.P.No.61/2005 in C.O.P. No.305/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai. 2. In our view, no appeal is maintainable against execution proceedings. The grievance of the appellant/opposite party/judgement debtor is that the E.P. had been taken on file under Order XXI Rule 11 of C.P.C. and that the E.P. has to be filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Their further grievance is that the District Forum had straightaway ordered arrest of the opposite party/judgement debtor without giving an opportunity to contest the case. In our view, quoting of wrong section can hardly be a ground for upsetting proceedings in execution. There is nothing to show whether any appeal has been filed against the order in the main complaint. The appeal is not maintainable. 3. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs....

S. Sivakumar Vs. M/S. Indo Asian Finance Ltd., Chennai

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. (open court) 1. The complainant in O.P.No.130/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. It is seen from the materials on record as follows:- (a) The complainant entered into a lease agreement with the opposite party on 13/01/2000 taking on lease a lorry under hire purchase arrangement. The lease agreement was entered into for the asset in 'as is where is' condition. It was the responsibility of the complainant to obtain the fitness certificate and insurance cover. There was default in the payment of rental. It would appear that the complainant handed over the vehicle to some third party without the permission of the opposite party and the 3rd opposite party also committed default in the payment of the E.M.I. The complainant put forward a case that he was advised to transfer the loan account and so he did that. Since the new party Ms.Rashida Begum failed to pay the instalments, the vehicle was repossessed ...

Central Government Health Scheme Rep. by the Additional Director Chenn ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The Opposite party in COP No.225/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows :- As a retired IPS officer, he was covered by the provisions of the Central Government Health Scheme. At the relevant time he was suffering from severe bouts of cough and also giddiness and unsteadiness for over a period of time and even after treatment for the said ailment by three eminent doctors viz., Dr.Jagannathan, Dr.Ramdas and Dr.R.B.Singh of Apollo Hospitals, his condition did not show any improvement and on 23/8/2004 his health condition deteriorated and took a turn for the worse. Dr.Ramdas opined that the complainant required immediate medical attention and he suggested emergency admission and care in a major hospital having advanced facilities for major tests and emergency treatment. The complainant got admitted on 23/8/2004 on an emergent basis for investigation and treatment o...

Dr. K. Rajakumari and Another Vs. Kala

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite parties in C.O.P.No.142/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem, are the appellants herein. Though they filed their version, they did not further participate in the proceedings they were called absent and set ex-parte when the case was posted for arguments as last chance. The District Forum has recorded it and has further observed that the case has been decided after perusing the case records and final order came to be passed on 30/11/2001. 2. The grievance of the complainant was that she underwent family planning operation with the opposite parties. The operation admittedly was not successful and the complainant conceived. According to the opposite parties, they had performed the operation in the conventional way and there was likelihood of family planning operation ending in failure in 1 to 2% of cases and the complainant's case was one such. 3. The District Forum found that there was negligence on the part of the docto...

Mr. S. Chandrasekaran Sai Kripa, Chennai Vs. the Chairman Tamil Nadu E ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J.(open court) 1. The complainant in O.P.No.56/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows:- (a) For one of his electricity connections at his request a separate meter was installed when the accommodation was leased out for a short period for commercial purpose. The licensee vacated the accommodation on 31/03/2000. The complainant sent a letter on 05/04/2000 to opposite party No.3 requesting him to change the tariff from commercial to domestic use. Accordingly, it was changed to domestic tariff since June 2000. However, in the month of February 2001, he was charged under commercial rate with arrears since April 2000 amounting to Rs.2,707/-. This amount he paid under protest. He sent a letter on 14/03/2001 along with receipt for Rs.20/- dt.16/03/2001 requesting opposite party No.3 to charge electricity consumption for the said connection since April 2000 at domestic ra...