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.
A.Thangaraju Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. In W.P.(MD)Nos.12918, 12919 of 2009, 189, 255 and 1394 of 2010, the prayer is more or less identical. The petitioners, who are direct recruit to the post of Assistants in Revenue Department, seek for a restraint order against the District Collector from re-drawing the panel for various years starting from 1996 and seek for a further direction to the Collector to retain the old approved list till the time frame fixed by this Court. They also seek for quashing of the fresh panel prepared by the District Collector. 3. In W.P.(MD)No.13757 of 2009, the prayer of the petitioners is for setting aside the orders of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, and after setting aside the same, seek for amendment of Rule 5(g) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, as per the order of the Supreme Court. 4. In W.P.(MD)No.13405 of 2009, the prayer is for se...
M/S. Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Sundaram
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party for various direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the award, order of the District Forum dt.30.12.2009 in CC.No.266/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.09.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent, had borrowed vehicle loan from the opposite party, for the purchase of three wheeler goods carrying auto, bearing Regn. No.TN 41 W7965, agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 EMI, @ Rs.3750/-. The opposite party, who had retained the original registration certificate, failed to handover t...
K. Rajasekar Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and O ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.1,71,400/- being the difference in the value of the building, to pay Rs.8824/- and Rs.4942/- being the excess interest collected, a sum of Rs.18,000/- with interest, representing the repair charges with compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 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.29.12.2009 in C.C.5/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.09.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant was allotted a house constructed for middle income group, bearing Door No.C-7, as per the or...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Directors Icici ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to settle the complainant Rs.3,48,099.22/- with 12% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the award, order of the District Forum dt.26.04.2010 in CC.No.14/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 28.09.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 facts leading to this appeal: 3. The complainant had taken a private car package policy, for his vehicle Skoda car, from 15.1.2007 to 14.1.2008, paying a premium of RS.56,544/- on 10.1.2007. On 28.10.2007, when the compla...
K. Subrayan Vs. A. Arunagiri and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.09.2011, 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 party claiming for direction to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency of service and incomplete work of the construction and Rs.2,000/- towards costs and to cancel the agreement for the construction from the opposite party and to permit the complainant to complete the work through some other contractor and for the unfair trade practice Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. Before the District Forum the opposite party failed to appear and thereby after setting exparte of the opposite party the District Forum on the basis of materials placed before it and on the basis of Advocate Commissioners Report Exhibit C1 allowed th...
V. Balakrishnan Vs. G. Charumathi and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.09.2011, 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. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 praying for direction to pay Rs.1,89,500/- towards amount received from complainant to refund a sum of Rs.6,300/- to pay compensation for mental agony Rs.50,000/- and for costs. 3. The 1st opposite party is the proprietor of Saravana Service Centre carrying business of selling cooker, grinder, mixie etc., and doing real estate business along with 2ndopposite party. Complainant paid Rs.1,89,340/- towards the purchase of a flat and also for the two numbers of wet grinder and VCD (MP3) for which she has paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,300/- respectively. When the complainant demanded for execution of sale deed...
J. Selvi Vs. the Assistant Director (Rpli) and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.09.2011, 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. Complainants husband took a RPLI Policy from 2nd opposite party on 21.1.06 for Rs.25,000/- for 17 years by paying the premium of Rs.128/- and the 2nd premium to be paid only after receiving the policy bond and pass book from the opposite parties and promised it would be sent within one month. The complainants husband often contacted the 2nd opposite party in this regard, but the pass book and the bond was not given to the complainants husband who died subsequently in an accident on 23.4.06. The 1st opposite party sent the policy bond and the pass book through 2nd opposite party on 8.6.06 and the 2nd opposite party returned the same with an endorsement addressee...
Solomon Matriculation School Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner is running a Matriculation School at Nazareth, Tuticorin District. He has filed the present Writ petition seeking for a direction to the official respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps to close down the 4th respondent / school after following the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder as well as the Code of Regulations for Approved Nursery and Primary School and pass necessary orders. 2.Notice of motion was ordered on 30.07.2010 in the Writ petition. Pending the Writ petition, no interim order was granted. 3.On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent / District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin has filed a counter affidavit dated 08.11.2010. In the counter affidavit it is stated that No Objection Certificate from the neighbouring school within a radius of one kilometer need not be obtained as they are outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the nei...
Anto Judi Livintha Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to challenge a charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. The petitioner appointed in the said post on compassionate appointment on account of death of her father late Zacharias, who was working as Chief Pharmacist in the Government Hospital at Sankarankoil and who died on 18.01.1995. The petitioner request was considered and she was given appointment on 05.06.1996 on temporary basis. It was later found out that the petitioner's brother was working as Pharmacist Government Hospital (Siddha Unit), Sankarankoil and this fact was not brought to the notice of the State Government. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and she was terminated by order dated 28.01.2002. She challenged the said termination before the the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No....
G.Senthilkumar Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner is a Panchayat Assistant working in the third respondent panchayat. Aggrieved by the action by the third respondent in refusing to permit the petitioner to work as Panchayat Assistant, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4974 of 2007. That writ petition came to be dismissed by a reasoned order, dated 16.04.2008. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court held that since the petitioner is asserting that he has a requisite qualification for holding the post of Panchayat Assistant and this Court having found that there is a dispute regarding the petitioner's qualification gave liberty to the petitioner to move the appellate authority since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner as against his non employment. The writ petition was dismissed but the liberty to move the appellate authority was preserved. 2.The petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram by representation dated 28.05.2008. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »