Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
P.Vijay Agarwal and anr. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. In view of the common issues involved in all the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals, a common order is passed.2.An extent of 0.17 acres of land in Survey No.84/6A1A1C and another extent of 0.39 acres of land in Survey No.84/6A1A1D in Thiruvanmiyur Village have been acquired by the Government by passing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") vide G.O.Ms.No.1096, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.07.1978. The petitioners have purchased the above lands by registered sale deeds on 02.06.1978. Thereafter, a declaration was passed under Section 6 of the Act on 08.08.1981 which was followed by a notice dated 11.08.1986 issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 23.09.1986. 3.The Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2054 and 2058 of 1987, challenging the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!M.Purushothaman and ors. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition had been filed by one M.Purushothaman, who had retired from service, as an office assistant, having worked under the third respondent. He had retired from service, on 31.10.2002, on attaining the age of superannuation. Since, M.Purushothaman had died, during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, his legal heirs had been brought on record in his place, as the petitioners in the writ petition, by an order passed by this Court, on 13.12.2010, in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.28024 of 2006.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated that M.Purushothaman, while working as an office assistant at Nagapattinam, had been transferred to Mallipattinam, by an order, dated 9.9.1991, based on certain false allegations. As, he was a heart patient and as he was undergoing treatment at Nagapattinam, he did not comply with the direction issued in the order of transfer.3. It had also been stated that M.Purushothaman had challeng...
Tag this Judgment!The Management Vs. Sulochana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 27.1.2006, made in C.P.No.400 of 20042. By its order, dated 27.1.2006, the second respondent Labour Court had directed the petitioner management to pay a sum of Rs.58,456/- to the first respondent, as the amount due to her, as salary. The petitioner management has stated that the first respondent had been appointed as a writer in the petitioner management school, which is a minority institution. The monthly salary of the first respondent had been fixed at Rs.4104/-. Thereafter, she had been re-appointed. She is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu.3. While so, she had absented herself from duty, without prior permission, from 6.6.2003. In spite of the reminders sent by the petitioner management requesting her to report for duty, there was no response from her. Instead, she had been sending telegrams to the management of the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Chandra Ananthasayanam Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of declaration, to declare that the land, having an extent of 2399 square meters, comprised in old survey No.65/2, T.S.No.2/1, in block No.22 of Saidapet Village, Guindy-Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District, belongs to the petitioner, absolutely, in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased 96 cents of land in Resurvey No.65/2, in patta No.19, in Anjaneyar Koil Street, (Hospital Road), Saidapet, Chennai, by way of a sale deed, dated 19.9.1960, registered as document No.2411 of 1960, on the file of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet. Since then, the petitioner has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property.3. It has been further stated that, while so, the second respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, No.A3.A13/SDT/78, dated 16.8.1979, holding that an extent of 4,399 square meters of land is in excess. It had also...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Executive-claim S. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.32,034/- with interest at 12% per annum from 15.09.2004 till the date of payment, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony, tension, torture etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.07.07.2008 in C.C.136/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The third opposite party in OP.136/2005, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] is the appellant, since they have received an adverse order,...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Pondicherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited Vs. M/ ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai(South) against the opposite parties/respondents praying for the direction to take this complaint on file, issue summons to opposite parties and to direct the opposite parties to remove the defects and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to award punitive damages of Rs.15,00,000/-, to cease the manufacture hazardous goods and to order cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The District Forum rejected the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) dt. 16.5.07 in OPSR.261/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.1.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsels for bothsides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complaina...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kandavel Vs. Dr. Poonkodi and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
The appellant as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.15,70,000/-, as compensation alongwith cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.31.8.2007 in OP.No.25/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 19.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainants daughter by name Vanitha, hereinafter called patient, who was hale and healthy, after conceivement, consulted the 1st opposite party, from 23.10.2000, regularly and was strictly following the instructions given by the 1st opposite party, including taking of the medicine also, ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ezhilarasan and Another Vs. M. Suresh Kumar
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,20,000/- for rectification work [as estimated by the Engineer], to pay ARs.60,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and strain and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.05.2007 in C.C.210/2002. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai in CC.210/2002, wherein, a direction came to be issued against the opposite parties/appellants to pay a s...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.S. Muthaiah, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Others Vs. K. Selvaraj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 24.1.2011 and hearing the arguments of the appellants' counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order: J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Sivagangai in C.O.P.29/2004. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant met with a road traffic accident on 5.1.2004 for which he got admitted in the third opposite party's hospital, where x-ray was taken at the instance of the first opposite party who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon and the first opposite party informed him that a surgery was needed. Accordingly surgery was fixed for 6.1.2004 and before the commencement of surgery, the second opposite party who is an anesthetist injected local anesthesia on the left shoulder of the complainant. Due to the negligence of the second opposite party, the injection needle got broken and the brok...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Roshini George (Minor) Vs. the Manager, State Bank of Travancore
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
This petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 18.11.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, claiming a total sum of Rs.35,78,370/-, against the opposite party, leveling, alleging, negligent act, as well as deficiency in service. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this case:- The complainant was having with the opposite party, a Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.132285 for Rs.1,50,000/-, dated 16.08.99, having maturity period of three years. At the time of maturity, the complainant informed the opposite party and handed over the matured FDR, to them for renewal, but the same was not renewed, returned, despite number of requests and letters. Because of the fact, the opposite party bank failed to realize their mistake...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »