Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
Manoharan Vs. Ms.Nagaladi Investments
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The Appellant / Defendant has projected the Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.02.2006, in A.S.No. 112 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur, dated 13.06.2003 in O.S.No. 315 of 2000, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Karur.The Plaint facts:2. According to the Respondent / Plaintiff, the Appellant/Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 02.12.1997 from it and that the Appellant / Defendant has executed a suit promissory note agreeing to pay interest thereon at 25.20% p.a. and to pay the principle sum and interest either to the Respondent/Plaintiff or order on demand. The Appellant/Defendant has paid interest up to 31.10.1999. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the Appellant/Defendant has not paid the amount so far.3. The Appellant/Defendant is not an Agriculturalist. Therefore, the Respondent/Plaintiff has claimed an interest at 25.20% p.a., at the aggrieved rate. Hence, the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for a ...
Tag this Judgment!R.Christy Inbaraj Vs. the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Pri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by R.Christy Inbaraj seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government letter No.87 AD 1/2008-12 dated 17.07.2008 of the first respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner (item No.13) alone and direct the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the approved list of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007 with all service benefits on par with the juniors of the petitioner within the time limit. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected as Agricultural Officer (Extension) by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1984-85 and joined duty on 09.04.1984 in the Office of the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Mobile Soil Testing Laboratory at Gudiyatham, Vellore District. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tiruppathur, Sivagangai Distri...
Tag this Judgment!K.Karuppasamy Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to allow him to continue in service on reemployment as a Graduate Assistant till the end of the academic year, i.e., on 31.5.2012 and to pay salary as applicable to the Graduate Teacher.2.In the writ petition when it came up for admission, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents on 13.10.2011. This court also directed the petitioner to continue in service till further orders and a direction was given to the respondents to file counter. The first respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit and also filed a typed set of papers in support of the averments in the counter affidavit.3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner joined the service as a Junior Assistant in the year 1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Graduate Assistant on 4.6.2004. During his tenure, he also got appreciation certificate for 100% pass in the Sci...
Tag this Judgment!V.John Lawrenso Vs. the Management of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The petitioner was employed as a reserve driver by the respondent State owned Corporation at the Headquarters at Trichirapalli. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to permit him to join duty and also to pay wages from 29.06.2010.2.In this writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 19.08.2010 and on notice, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 28.04.2011.3.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:3.1.The petitioner was appointed as a reserved driver by an order dated 14.09.2009. In the said order, it was stated that the petitioner will be bound by the standing orders, general rules. In paragraph 7 of the appointment order, it was stated that in case, his services was not satisfactory, he will be sent out without any advance notice. In paragraph 8, it was stated that when permanent vacancies arise on the basis of seniority, he will be appointed on daily wage worker as per the Government Order. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!M/.S. S.P.K. Real Estate and Another Vs. Padam Bahadur and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
M. THANIKACHALAM J. PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties in C.C.31/2008, 234/2007, 233/2007, 230/2007 and 126/2007 are the appellants in F.A.Nos.150/2010 to 154/2010 respectively. 2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in the respective complaints. 3. This order shall dispose all the appeals. Common facts [in all the cases]: 4. The first appellant/opposite party was promoting real estate in Coimbatore and Erode Districts. On seeing the advertisement made by the first opposite party, the complainants approached the first opposite party, through the authorized agent-second opposite party, for the purchase of plots, investing the amounts, as per the scheduled shown hereunder by each complainants.Sl.No.Complainants NameC.C.No.F.A. No.Amount paid by the complainantCompensation claimed01.Padam Bahadur31/2008150/2010Rs.30,000/-Rs.15,000/-02.Mrs.M.Shakunthala234/2007151/2010Rs.60,000/-Rs.30,000/-03.R. Jayanthi233/2007152/2010Rs.30,000/-Rs.15,000/-04.V. Chandrakala230/2007153/2007Rs....
Tag this Judgment!A. Suresh Anand and Another Vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Chai ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
The appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to return all the documents and title deeds submitted by the complainant for the loan, to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards the compensation for deficiency of service, interest loss and for harassment and mental agony and to pay the 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.18.01.2010 in C.C.363/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.10.2011, 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 complainants are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to this appeal:- The complainants husband and wife, had availed loan bearing No.LBCHE00001431462, for a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!S.Valayapathy Vs. G.Bernardsha Samuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. The Appellant / Defendant has filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, viz., the Second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, dated 08.09.2005 in A.S.No. 197 of 2005, in reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.02.2005, in O.S.No. 393 of 2004, passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.2. The First Appellate Court, viz., the Second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.197 of 2005, dated 08.09.2005, has inter alia observed that PW-1, G.Bernardsha Samuel and PW-2, Peer Mohammed, have been examined to establish the execution of suit pronote Ex. A-1, and there is no necessity to examine the witnesses mentioned in suit pronote as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and has come to a resultant conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has not proved that he has not received the loan from the Respondent/Plaintiff and further that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved his case...
Tag this Judgment!S.Muniyasamy Vs. the Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. The petitioner is an aspirant for getting LPG dealership from Bharat Petroleum Corporation under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme. When the publication was advertised in the Dinakaran newspaper, dated 31.03.2010, Madurai edition seeking for application for LPG dealership, he also made an application claiming that he is the resident of Karivalamvandanallur Village in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The said village out let was exclusively for persons belongs to Schedule Caste community. The notification itself gave certain requirements for making applications. One such requirement was that the land which has to be shown for the purpose of putting up godown should be available in the same revenue village.2. The petitioner made an application giving the particulars of his land owned by him, which was situated in Kuvalaikanni Panchayat. In the final list of applications found eligible who were are qualified for short-list of selection under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LP...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director Vs. Shanthadevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. Challenge is made in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to the award, dated 05.12.2008 and made in MCOP No.308 of 2005 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai,2.The appellant herein is the respondent in the claim petition. The respondents are the claimants. The claimants 1 to 5 have preferred the claim petition in MCOP No.308 of 2005 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the first respondent and the father of the remaining respondents/claimants, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 12.11.2004 at 7.15 p.m., involving the passenger bus bearing registration No.TN-67-N-0188, when the deceased was riding his two-wheeler Bajaj-M.80 bearing registration No.TN-58-H-2567.3.It appears from the averments of the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased Mr.P.Ganesan was aged about 58 years and...
Tag this Judgment!R.Ravi Vs. the Deputy Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. The Appellant / Defendant has filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, viz., the Second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, dated 08.09.2005 in A.S.No. 197 of 2005, in reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.02.2005, in O.S.No. 393 of 2004, passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.2. The First Appellate Court, viz., the Second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.197 of 2005, dated 08.09.2005, has inter alia observed that PW-1, G.Bernardsha Samuel and PW-2, Peer Mohammed, have been examined to establish the execution of suit pronote Ex. A-1, and there is no necessity to examine the witnesses mentioned in suit pronote as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and has come to a resultant conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant has not proved that he has not received the loan from the Respondent/Plaintiff and further that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved his case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »