Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
M.A.Haja Mohideen Vs. the Registar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed by the first respondent in F.P.A.No.32/MDS/97 dated 13.11.2000, confirming the finding of the second respondent.2. The petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Laws in 1974 and was released in the month of March, 1977. He was detained under the Preventive Detention Laws, on the ground that he was involved in violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation At. The case of the petitioner is that the violations alleged by Enforcement Wing Officials, were set aside by Foreign Exchange Regulation Board, New Delhi on 22.07.1986. The petitioner claims that there were no proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against him in the eyes of law. In support of this averment, the petitioner has placed on record the Order No.SDE(RS)/IV/17/86 dated 24.07.1986, passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, New Delhi. In view of the det...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. City Motors, Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. N. Subramaniam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
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 compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony with 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.25.04.2005 in C.C.215/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.10.2010, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, written submissions of the respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum in O.P.215/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, wherein, a direction has been given to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with cost, an appeal is preferred by the opposite party. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Madhavi Vs. Dr.V. Sivakumar, Mbbs and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.18 lakhs towards untold sufferings, mental agony and deficiency in service. 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.29.09.2005 in C.C.35/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.01.2011, 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. A fabulous claim of Rs.18 lakhs, based upon the alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties, was negatived by the District Forum, resulting this appeal, asserting the same for redressal. 2. The appellant/complainants son by name Suresh was having vomiting and dysentery on 16.06.2004, for whic...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary R.K. Pet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank R.K.Pet a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
The Respondents as complainants 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 towards FDRs alongwith interst and compensation of Rs.50000/-. 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.11.6.2007 in OP.No.62/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 13.1.2011. 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/respondent, had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh, in two Fixed Deposit Receipts, each for Rs.50000/-, on 21.5.2002, which was later renewed, after maturity. The 1st opposite party, though paid interest for two years, originally, thereafter fail...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rajesh Hardwares Rep. by Its Partner Vs. the Branch Manager Unite ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pass the actual damage amount of Rs.149021/-, to pay Rs.1000/- towards loss of business, Rs.10000/- towards deficiency service, Rs.10000/- for unfair trade practice, Rs.25000/- for mental agony along with cost Rs.5000/-. 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.28.12.2006 in C.O.P.No.24/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.12.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the 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 complainant, who is running a hardware business, in his premises, were wheel alignment, and wheel balances, are done, had taken an ...
Tag this Judgment!M.Raja Mohammed Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, vide Memo No. 1311/OTD-A4/2010 dated 03.09.2010. The impugned order reads as under: "The attention of Dr.Raja Mohammed (Reg.No.00102119) is drawn to the petition cited and he is informed that he has claimed in his application that he belongs to Muslim Labbai included in the list of BC-M on his conversion from Hindu to Muslim. According to clarification received from the Government, in the absence of any orders issued by the Government in respect of converts from Hindu to Islam, they will have to be considered as "Others". If the petitioner is considered as "Others", he will be ineligible to apply for the said recruitment for the reason that he is over aged. A show cause notice has therefore been issued to the petitioner in the reference 2nd cited. In view of the above reason, his request to consider him for the post of Veterinary Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!C.Logeswaran Vs. the Special Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the charge memo of the respondent dated 25.6.2004, on the basis that the respondent has no power to continue the disciplinary proceedings since the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 30.6.2004 on attainment of the age of superannuation. 2.1. The petitioner was employed as a Secretary of the respondent/ Society, which is a co-operative society, and he was to retire from service on attainment of the age of superannuation on 30.6.2004. It was five days before the date of superannuation the impugned charge memo came to be issued on 25.6.2004, on the basis that he was involved in the issuance of loans in an improper manner to power loom weavers and failed to recover the loans. It was also charged that the petitioner has failed to shift the society to the new building, for which sanction was given in the year 2001. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge memo is motivated and according to him, on 30.6.2004, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!D.Samson Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner who was working as a Laboratory Technician (Grade-I) in the Government Hemerijokx Leprosy Centre at Polambakkam, Kancheepuram District filed Original Application in O.A.No.7531 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the order of removal made in G.O.(D) No.155, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 22.02.2000 by the first respondent confirming the order dated 19.01.1990 of the second respondent - District Medical Officer removing the petitioner from service. 2.In the Original Application, notice of motion was ordered on 16.10.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated Nil (March 2006). 3.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.45940 of 2006.4.The facts leading to the removal of the petitioner from service are as follows:-(a) The petitioner while working in the Leprosy Centre went on leave with effect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the impugned letter dated 19.7.2004 of the General Manager, Personnel Department, Head Office, Indian Bank, Chennai 600 001 and for a direction against the respondents to pay the arrears of pension due to the petitioner from November, 1993 with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to continue to pay the pension as per the Indian Bank Employees' Pension Scheme 1993 and Rules 1995. 2.1. The petitioner had joined in the services of the Indian Bank on 1.2.1953 as an Officer and after many promotions, he was ultimately promoted and was working as Zonal Manager in the Madras Zone as on September, 1988 in the grade of Deputy General Manager. He has submitted a letter on 22.4.1987 requesting the Bank to permit him to retire prematurely due to ill health and the said request was accepted and he was allowed to retire as per the communication of the Bank dated 5.9.1988 and his pensionary benefits were settled. 2.2. It is stated that after h...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Hamosons Apparels Pvt.Ltd Vs. the Joint Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the one and the same employer. In the first Writ Petition, the challenge is to the recovery notice dated 22.12.2003, wherein the petitioner establishment was levied with damages under Section 85-B of the ESI Act for the sum amounting to Rs.1,42,967. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 1.3.2004. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the amount claimed. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said condition has been complied with.2. However, the same petitioner filed W.P.No.5282 of 2004. In that Writ Petition, the relief claimed is for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the the respondent to waive the interest imposed under Section 39(5) of the ESI Act, 1948 r/w Regulation 31 of ESI (General) Regulation 1950 pursuant to the proceedings dated 23.12.2003. By the proceedings dated 23.12.2003, the petitioner was directed to p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »