Chennai Court October 2011 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.
K.S. Muthu Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sirkazhi Town ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order.) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to pay Rs.1,35,000/- towards the crop insurance and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony for costs. 3. The complainant is a farmer obtained cultivation loan from the 1st opposite party for more than number of years and regularly repaid the loans and as usual for the crop year 2004-05 obtained Samba Crop loan from the 1st opposite party for Rs.1,30,000/- on 20.8.04. The amount was paid on 25.10.05. The 1st opposite party deducted crop insurance premium from the low amount with assurance to pay to the 3rd opposite party between October to Decem...
V. Soundararajan Vs. Sister Leema, Administrator and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties severally and jointly to pay a total sum of Rs.5,52,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering with costs. 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.11.03.2010 in C.C.18/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and first respondent in person 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The factual matrix unavoidably necessary for the disposal of the case as follows: The appellant/complainant admitted his wife Annamma, for delivery in the first opposite partys hospital ...
S. Sathyamoorthy Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sirkazhi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to pay Rs.1,35,000/- towards the crop insurance and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony for costs. 3. The complainant is a farmer obtained cultivation loan from the 1st opposite party for more than number of years and regularly repaid the loans and as usual for the crop year 2004-05 obtained Samba Crop loan from the 1st opposite party for Rs.1,80,000/- on 12.8.04. The amount was paid on 25.10.05. The 1st opposite party deducted crop insurance premium from the loan amount with assurance to pay to the 3rd opposite party between October to Decem...
P.Ramkumar (Minor Aged About 17 Years) Vs. the Director, and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The petitioner, who was a minor represented by his father as natural guardian, filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to implement the first respondent letter bearing No.49255/B$1/2010, dated 31.08.2010 and ensure the admission of the petitioner in the fourth respondent self financing private engineering college. 2. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.10.2010. Pending notice of motion, no interim order was granted to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contended that after successfully completed Higher Secondary School, he applied for admission in the engineering college. He also attended the counselling held on 01.08.2010 and he was given the provisional allotment order in the fourth respondent college by the Council of Tamilnadu Engineering Admission, Chennai and he also paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the partial tuition fee for the first year B.E. after successfully got selection in the counseling. He has also got a Bank Challan for Rs.7,500/- ready to be paid in the name...
N.Ramkumar Vs. P.Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The petitioner is an employer under Jeyaram Transport at Palayamkottai. In this writ petition, he has come forward to challenge the order passed by the second respondent, Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.A.No.32 of 2011 in I.D.No.46 of 2010, dated 12.05.2011. By the interim order, the Labour Court held that the petitioner management cannot engage a lawyer in terms of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and that the parties before the Labour Court cannot engage an advocate as a matter of right except with the consent of the other side and with the direction of the Court. 2. In the present case, the Labour Court felt that the first respondent who was a conductor working in the private corporation was not having a lawyer and therefore, if the petitioner engages a counsel, it will create inequality between the parties and therefore, it held that the petitioner cannot engage the service of the counsel in conducting the dispute. Challenging ...
M.Chandrasekaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The writ petition was filed by three persons who are working as Assistants in the Thanjavur District in the Rural Development Agency. The petitioners were initially appointed under the Survey Department and they were redeployed to Rural Development Department as Junior Assistants. 2.In this writ petition, the petitioners wanted to challenge the orders dated 19.06.2005 issued by the District Collector and the consequential order, dated 07.07.2005 and after setting aside the same, they seek for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to promote them to the post of Extension Officers from the date on which the respondents 6 to 15 were given promotion together with monetary benefits on the basis of the seniority list published in proceedings, dated 31.12.2001. 3.The writ petition was admitted on 17.08.2005. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim stay only notice was ordered. Subsequently, in the said application, this Court held that any promotion made pursuant to the p...
The Managing Director Vs. D.Yasothai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Challenge is made in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to the award dated 31.08.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.287 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ramanathapuram. 2. The appellant herein is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, who is the respondent in the claim petition. The respondents herein are the claimants viz., the wife and children of the deceased Dheenathayalan. 3. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal may be summarized briefly as follows:- The deceased Dheenathayalan was working as a Selection Grade Conductor in the appellant Transport Corporation. He had succumbed to severe injuries, when he met with a road traffic accident on 07.02.2000 at the time of travelling as conductor on duty in the passenger bus bearing registration No.TN63 N 0644 belonging to the appellant Corporation. It is alleged that on 07.02.2000 at about 1.00 a.m. near Thambai Village...
Santhanakrishnan Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 28.02.2011 and for consequential direction to the first respondent to permit them to function as the College Committee for administering the Yadava College, Madurai in terms of the resolution dated 21.12.2008 passed by the General Body of the Yadava College. 2. When the writ petition came up on 26.04.2011, this Court ordered notice regarding admission and subsequently time was extended to file counter by the respondents. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 13.04.2011 and the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.10.2011 and the fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.06.2011. They have also filed voluminous type set of papers showing previous litigation between the parties. 3. In the impugned order, the first respondent, the Director of Collegiate Education, on considerin...
S.T.Subramaniam Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The petitioner was working in the first respondent school. The present writ petition was filed after his date of retirement. Initially, he has chosen to challenge the enquiry notice, dated 06.11.2006 based upon the charge memo dated 28.03.1997 and seeks to set aside the same and for a consequential direction to regularise various periods of suspension as duty period and also to grant increments including pay arrears for the above said periods. 2.When the matter came up on 18.04.2007, this Court ordered notice of motion in this writ petition. Pending the notice of motion, interim stay was granted initially for a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 seeking for amendment of the original writ prayer and that was also ordered by this Court on 04.02.2010. The amended prayer reads as follows: To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the domestic enquiry notice in No.LD 176/2006-2007, dt.6....
S.Sivasubramani Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent, namely the State owned Transport Corporation, having headquarters at Madurai, to appoint him to the post of Junior Engineer (Training) as per his seniority with the Employment Exchange. 2.Notice of Motion was ordered on 15.02.2011. Pending Notice of Motion, interim order was not granted though a request was made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011. 3.In the counter affidavit, dated 26.05.2011, filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that requisitions were called for in five regions in Madurai, Tirunelveli, Nagercoil, Dindigul and Virudhunagar in respect of seven districts and 132 candidates were sponsored, out of which 42 were selected and in respect of the 2nd respondent, out of six vacancies notified, the posts were filled-up after conducting an interview. It is stated that the petitioner's name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore the question of claiming a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »