Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
K.S.Murugan Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. The petitioner claims the right of management over the school established by his grand father. It is the case of the petitioner that his grand-father S.K.Karuppasamy died on 04.06.2006. Thereafter, the legal heirs of said S.K.Karuppasamy claimed that they are the educational agency and claimed absolute right as against ownership of the school. No secretary was appointed by the educational agency and in view of the dispute, the school was directly administered by the department. 2. In the meanwhile one the sons of the said S.K.Karuppasamy obtained approval of his name as Secretary of the School without reference to the educational agency and suppressing the real constitution of the educational agency. The petitioner's father namely Soochar predeceased his brother S.K.Karuppasamy, who was then Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that being the legal heirs, he will also be eligible to be a member of the educational agency. 3. The petitioner sent a representati...
Tag this Judgment!K.Narayanan Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu seeking for a direction, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu K.Shanmugam, S/o.Kailasa Thevar, aged about 47 years, who has been termed as Black Marketeer, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamcottai and call for records pertaining to the impugned order of detention in MHS Confdl.No.33/201 dated 14.07.2011 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and set the detenu at liberty.2.We have heard Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Ramar, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Irulappan, learned Central Government standing counsel appearing for the respondents R3 and 4 .3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the impugned order of detention, passed under Act 7 of 1980, terming the detenu K.Shanmugam, as Black Marketeer is not sustainable. He would further submit that the detainin...
Tag this Judgment!A.Periyasamy Vs. A.Krishnasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 5.1.2009, made in I.A.No.181 of 2008, in the unnumbered suit, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.2. The petitioner herein had filed the suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, to recover the amount of Rs.85,000/-, along with the interest thereon, based on a promissory note. From the records available before this Court it is seen that the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit, had filed the said suit, on 13.7.2006, without paying the required Court fee and without getting the Court seel affixed. Therefore, it had been returned for its proper representation. Thereafter, it had been represented, only on 12.6.2008. Thus, there has been a delay of nearly 655 days in the representation of the suit. The petitioner had stated that the delay had been caused due to the fact that he could not contact his counsel, as he had been ill, due to jaundice. It has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Salma Begum Vs. the Chief Manager, State Bank of India and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2011, 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. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for the direction to pay the benefits of the insurance cover attached to the housing loan availed by her husband from the opposite parties and declaring the loan amount obtained by her husband is duly discharged and to return the original documents and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and for costs. 3. Complainants husband K.Abdullah availed housing loan by way of transferring the existing housing loan from LIC Housing Finance from 1st opposite party and availed further loan for his housing construction on 2.8.03. Further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given for the same. The complainants husband joi...
Tag this Judgment!The Post Master Anaipalayam Post Office Rasipuram Taluk and Another Vs ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.1 lakh, Rs.50000/-. For mental agony and Rs.8000/- towards expenses 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.21.01.2010 in CC.No.34/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 03.10.2011. 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 parties are the appellants. 2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal: The complainants /respondents son, by name Samidurai, had taken Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy, hereinafter called RPLI, from the 1st opposite party, for a sum of RS.1 lakh, w.e.f. 10....
Tag this Judgment!Proprietoer, Mubarak Family Restaurant and Another Vs. D. Harikumar
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2011, 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 claiming refund of Rs.375/- paid as parking charges and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and loss and for deficiency of service for the unfair trade practice and for costs. 3. Complainant on 31.3.08 went to the opposite parties restaurant and parked his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 74 U-9522 in the vacant space of the opposite parties hotel and had his breakfast. Since there was rain he was not able to take out the motorcycle immediately enquired with the 2nd opposite party for parking his motorcycle in the hotel compound for some time and will take after his return. 2nd opposite party did...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. R. Venkatesan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and R3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 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 second opposite party is the appellant. 2. The first and second respondents, as complainants, filed a consumer complainants for the payment of matured amount for three deposits made by them with the first opposite party, in which, other opposite parties are functioning as Directors, alleging that even after the maturity, despite many demands, they failed to pay the amount, thereby caused mental agony, for which also, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- with costs. 3. The second opposite party/appellant resisted the case inter alia contending, that he retired from the Director post with effect from 7.03.2002, that thereafter the entire administration of the first opposite partys in the hands of ...
Tag this Judgment!N.Swamiduraivelu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by N.Swamiduraivelu for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police fit for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police for the year 2011 in accordance with the seniority without reference to the minor punishment of censure dated 25.08.2011 as a bar for such consideration. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchendur Sub- Division, Tuticorin, a charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The only charge issued for which he was called upon to submit his explanation alleged that there was an alleged impersonation of one Perumal, son of Muthusamy, Kayalpattinam by his brother Sakthivel in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Best Mega International Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to release the goods viz, 122 Units of old and used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines of various models and 22 Units (viz., 2 item of 11 Units) of Old and Used Digital Wide Format Printing Machines with Scanner and Accessories imported vide Bills of Entry Nos.4557554, 4122943 and 4752085 dated 06.09.2011, 20.07.2011 and 26.09.2011 respectively under free as second hand capital goods in terms of Para 2.17 read with definitions under 9.12 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy and in Para 2.33 of Hand Book of Procedures 2009-2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' Company have imported 122 Units of Old and Used Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machines and 22 Units (viz., 2 item of 11 Units) of Old and Used Digit...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Korampallam Milk Producers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1990, in O.S.No.22 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. 2. The parties, for sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, avoiding discursive delineation, the germane facts would run thus: The plaintiff being a nationalised Bank filed the suit for recovery of money seeking the following reliefs: (a) directing that the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.46,294.60 with interest at 12.5% from 14.07.1985 till date of decree and subsequent interest thereafter at 12 1/2% till realisation; (b) directing that the defendants do pay the plaintiffs the cost of the suit; (c) and awarding such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 4. The defendants 4, 7 and 8 resisted the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »