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.
Dr.R.Geetha Vs. Dr.M.G.R. Medical University
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
1. By consent of the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the publication of results of the petitioner's registration No.20085401 dated 23.6.2011 to the course of M.D. Community Medicine insofar as it relates to the practical exam and viva-voce and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct the practical and viva-voce exam by a qualified internal examiner as provided under the P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner, after passing M.B.B.S. Degree, joined in the Tamil Nadu Government Service in the year 2001 and she worked at Primary Health Centre in Erode District. She joined in D.G.O. course at Kasturibai Gandhi Hospital, which is attached to Madras Medical Colleg...
G. Pravinchand Vs. Roche Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 19.08.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complainant is having type 1 diabetes from July 2006 and also a heart patient and his angioplasty done in 2006 and as per the advise of the doctor on 7.4.2007 and by prescription given on that date by Dr.Raj Bal Abkchand to keep regular check on the blood sugar level and for the said purpose he was advised to purchase the product manufactured by the opposite parties 1 to 3 Accu Check comfort and also strips for testing the sugar levels and on 26.4.07 complainant purchased one pack of Accu Check Sensor Comfort 50 manufactured by the opposite parties with expiry date of March 2008 for a sum of Rs.1,400/- from 4...
M/S. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Exec ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay RS.20000/- with 24% interest, towards travelling expenses, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- 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.24.3.2010 in CC.No.276/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.10.2011. 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 respondent/ complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking direction for the refund of a sum of RS.20000/-, paid by him in two Chit groups, as well as for compensation of Rs.10000/-, for mental agony, alleging that the o...
Saradha Gopalakrishnan and Another Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellants side 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. The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. Complainants filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for direction to repay the cost of vehicle for Rs.40,344/- including accessories or to replace the new vehicle for the same model without collecting any extra cost and Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony, hardship and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 3. The 1st complainant purchased Honda Activa two wheeler for his son-2nd complainant for Rs.38,254/- through the opposite party and by way of finance agreement loan which is repayable in 20 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,930/-EMI. In the month of August 2003 they have shifted their residence from Velachery to Alwarpet. After communicating the sa...
T.Sivakumar Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
S.NAGAMUTHU.J., 1. Selvi. Sujatha, the detenue, is aged 17 years. She is the daughter of the petitioner. Previously, she was studying in a Higher Secondary School at Tiruvallur and was staying at the house of the petitioner's sister. On 08.06.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. She had gone to a local temple, but she did not return thereafter. The petitioner learnt that the 2nd respondent along with others had kidnapped her. He preferred a complaint in this regard before the 1st respondent on 20.06.2011 on which a case in Crime No.309 of 2011 for offence under Section 366(A) of IPC has been registered. Alleging that the minor detenue was kept illegally by the kidnappers, the petitioner filed the present habeas corpus petition. 2. The 3rd respondent is the father of the 2nd respondent. When this habeas corpus petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, on 28.07.2011, the Division Bench ordered notice to the respondents. In pursuance of the same, the minor detenue appeared bef...
The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Hosur and Oth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.09.2011, 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. Opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties praying for direction for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for damages and mental agony due to the loss of employment for non provision of certificate regarding the course completed and for Rs.2,000/- as costs. 3. The complainant joined ITI Training course in the 1st opposite partys institution for which the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is directly having control. The 1st opposite party joined ITI course in instrument mechanic during the year 1995-97 course and completed the course in the year 1997. He was not provided the certificate for the completion of course up to 21.10.04 and thereby he was den...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›