Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R.P. Manoharan Vs. State Bank of India (Commercial Branch) Rep. by Its ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2009
HON'BLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This unnumbered CMP has been filed by the opposite party in CC.220/2006 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore to condone the delay of 691 days in restoring FASR.750/2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.10.2007. 2. After the filing of the application, the Registry felt that the petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same was placed before us to decide the maintainable. 3. Heard the Learned Counsel Mr.V.Shankar, Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. The respondent herein as complainant filed a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in CC.220/2006, complaining certain deficiencies against the opposite party who is a practicing advocate as if he has not filed the case which was entrusted to him and also failed to refund the fees, that the cheques issued by him were not honoured and he has also not honoured the same despite notice etc., thereby claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh a...
Dr. Ravindranath Babu Mahalakshmiclinic, Madurai Vs. T.R. Indira
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2009
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. (Open court) 1. Heard. The respondent herein as complainant, filed a petition against the Revision Petitioner, claiming a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation, alleging medical negligence. Originally, the last date of treatment given to the petitioners son is 26.10.1997. Unfortunately, the son of the complainant died on 25.2.1998. As mandated under the Act, the complainant has not filed the case within two years, from the date of cause of action, whether the cause of action is to be taken is the as last date of treatment or the date of death of the son of the complainant, as the case may be. 2. Originally, the complainant informed the court, that there was a delay of 104 days, filed a petition before the District Forum in IA.No.218/2000, which was allowed by the District Forum, probably without ordering notice to the otherside. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party in the complaint, preferred a Revision Petition, before this commission in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›