Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
A. Kamadhenu Vs. Dr. Girija Rajkumar, M.B.B.S., Dgo R.G. Nursing Home
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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.4,00,000/-, 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.22.2.2007 in OP.No.275/2000. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.1.2011. 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. Brief facts leading to the complaint: The complainant was admitted in the opposite party hospital, for second delivery, gave birth to a child on 10.11.93, on which date itself, she had undergone sterlisation, for which a certificate was also issued by the opposite party. 3. The complainant h...
Tag this Judgment!Aitel Bharat Mobinet Ltd., Rep. by P.H. Rao Managing Director and Anot ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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.1,00,000/-, as compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-. 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.17.11.2008 in OP.No.232/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 24.1.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, 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 District Forum, upon a complaint, by the consumer, slapped an order, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25000/-, as compensation, with cost of Rs.5000/-, as per order dt.17.11.2008, which is challenged in this appeal. 2. The complainant was having Airtel postpaid connection Mobile No.98400 882...
Tag this Judgment!M.Muthuramalingam Vs. the Branch Manager, Icici Bank Limited, T.Nagar ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai(South), alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to repy Rs.1600/- and Rs.18,681/- with interest @ 24%, to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency of service, to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for the resultant mental agony and pain and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) dt.22.01.2008 in C.C.No.304/2007. After hearing the arguments of appellant side, finally on 19.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the respondents/opposite parties claiming for compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the deficiency of service and to repay Rs.1,600/- and Rs.18,681/- with interest for wrong auto debit made in his Sav...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by Its Divisional Manager Vs. P.J. S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.1 lakh as damage or compensation on all aspects with 18% interest and to pay the 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.30.08.2007 in C.C.241/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, had caused grievance to the opposite party, in OP.241/2005 by its order dated 30.08.2007, issuing certain directions, resulting this appeal, to eclipse the same. 2. Facts:- The lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-K-3130, originally ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Engineer, Salem Housing Unit and Others Vs. V. Chinnappa ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
The Respondents / complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.90,000/- to rectify the defective construction, to pay Rs.15,000/- for shifting residence by paying rent and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The District Forum allowed complainant in part, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.05.2007 in C.C.373/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels and perused the documents, written submissions of respondent filed as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The first complainant/first respondent (herein after called complainant] was allotted a house by the opposite parties, bearing Door No.A1-48/5/663, as per the proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chellathangam Vs. the Branch Manager, Lic of India and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to release the assured amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with 6% interest from the date of claim and also a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and sufferings 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.30.04.2007 in C.C.87/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.01.2011 , upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainants wife by name Mrs.Santhakumari had taken four insurance policies with the opposite parties, for a total sum of rupees, assured Rs.2,80,000/-, wherein, she had nominated the complainant/husband, as her ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Impex Private Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 12.5.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 12.5.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the represe...
Tag this Judgment!D.Dinakar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the sale deed registered vide No.2073/2010 to the petitioner.2. The petitioner had purchased the property measuring 3404 sq. ft. land by registered Sale Deed in the year 2010, which was registered in the office of the second respondent. The total sale consideration was Rs.3,40,400/-, of which, the requisite stamp duty was levied. The Sale Deed was registered by Registration No.2073 of 2010. After the document was registered by Duty Registrar, the Sub-Registrar referred it for determination as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. A notice under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, was also issued to the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that during pendency of the adjudication, it will not open to the respondents to retain the document. Therefore, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Senior Divisional Manager Vs. S.Kamalam, W/O.Late K.Sundararaj and Ano ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to pay the claim Insurance amount Rs.50,000/-, to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for her mental agony and sufferings, and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore dt.17.07.2007 in C.O.P No.279/2003. After hearing the arguments of appellant side, finally on 14.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. 2nd opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant. 2. Against this appellant and 1st opposite party filed a complaint. Before the District Forum, the 1st respondent/complainant filed a complaint for the claim of Rs.50,000/- towards LIC policy claim amount against the death of her...
Tag this Judgment!S.Gnanasekaran Vs. Archeological Survey of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
O R D E RLord Curzon, architect of the pathbreaking Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, which is the forerunner to the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), while speaking at the annual meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in the year 1900, has observed as follows: "The historic buildings, the magnificent temples, the inestimable works of art, are invested with a publicity that to some extent saves them from the risk of desecration or the encroachments of decay. Here all is different. India is covered with the visible records of vanished dynasties, of forgotten monarchs, of persecuted and sometimes dishonoured creeds. These monuments are, for the most part, though there are notable exceptions in British territory, and on soil belonging to Government. Many of them are in out-of-the-way places, and are liable to the combined ravages of a tropical climate, an exuberant flora, and very often a local and ignorant population, who see only in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »