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.
R.Kannan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioners are having the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, they filed writ petitions before the Principal Seat in the year 2002 seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings taken by the State Government acquiring the petitioners' land in favour of Small Industries Development Corporation. Those writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court. At that time, the petitioners contended that they were owners of the land holding Cowle patta and possession was not taken over. But the seventh respondent therein, Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO), the second respondent herein appeared before this Court and informed that major portions of the land were utilized and as per the Government Policy, trees have been planted and as and when necessary, such lands shall be utilized. The counter affidavit filed by the SIDCO, the 7th respondent therein asserted that since they are the requisitioning body and compensation was paid and the writ peti...
V.Ramesh Vs. the Correspondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition, seeking to challenge an order dated 31.05.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, appointing the 3rd respondent as a Headmaster in-charge of the 1st respondent / school and after setting aside the same and for a consequential direction to promote the petitioner in the post of Headmaster in the first respondent / school at Sivasailam, Tirunelveli District.2.When the Writ petition came up for admission on 21.07.2010 notice of motion was ordered.3.On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.10.2011. The first respondent / school has also filed a counter affidavit dated 17.10.2011 together with a supporting documents in the form of typed set.4.The contention of the petitioner was that the order is given in favour of the 3rd respondent was illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1375 Education Department, dated 06.07.1981, wherein, it is stated that if no qualified and suitable candidate is available in the...
icici Lombard General Insurance Vs. M.Gomathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Challenge is made in this civil miscellaneous appeal to the award of Rs.5,87,000/-, dated 28.06.2010 and made in MCOP No.25 of 2008, on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.2.The appellant herein is the Insurance Company, who is the second respondent in the claim petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants. Whereas the third respondent is the owner of the tractor involved in the accident.3.The facts which giving rise to the memorandum of this civil miscellaneous appeal may be summarised briefly as follows:-The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and daughter of the deceased Marimuthu. They have filed the claim petition in MCOP No.25 of 2008 claiming a sum of Rs.7,00.000/- for the death of the deceased Marimuthu, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 7.10.2008 at 11.45 a.m., when the New Holland Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-76-Y-6919 attached with a tr...
E.Vimala Vs. the District Elementary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed as Primary school Headmistress in the TDTA Primary School at Tuckerammalpuram, Palayamkottai rural range as against a retired vacancy of one A.Roopa Jebakumar. The appointment was made by one Jacob Chelliah claiming to be the manager of T.D.T.A. Primary and Middle schools under Tirunelveli Diocese, vide order dated 11.08.2008. Subsequently, it transpires on the same day that one Rev.S.E.C.Devasahayam, was the manager C.S.I Primary & Middle schools relieved the petitioner from the primary school at Mahilchipuram at Karungulam Range on 11.08.2008 and when she joined the new school as Headmistress, the same Jacob Chellaiah forwarded the same to the District Educational Officer, Palayamkottai by a covering letter, dated 13.08.2008 asking her name to be approved. 2.In the meanwhile, a communication was sent by Rev.A.Peter Devadoss, the then manager of the T.D.T.A. Primary and Middle Schools of the Diocese of Tirunelveli on 02.01.2009 stating that the ...
M/S. Jaya Vairavan Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director A.P. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
This complaint dt.30.01.2004 filed against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service, claiming Rs.84,30,215/- being the claim and to pay Rs.10 lakhs for harassment and mental agony. This petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 20.09.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant claiming a total sum of Rs.94,30,215/-, has filed this case under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the following grounds:- The complainant had insured the stock and the mill premises with the opposite parties, under two policies, viz (i) Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.F/220/2001, dated 26.06.2000 for a sum insured to the tune of Rs.8,01,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- for the Building of Cotton Yarn Godown and Stock and Stock in process in the Cotton Yarn Godown respectively and (...
R. Ponkumar Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.09.2011, 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. Appellant/Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings for the supply of soft drink containing foreign material and for costs. 3. The complainant working as an employee in Muthu Wines at Thiruvottiyur on 13.6.03 purchased two bottles of Pepsi soft drink for a sum of Rs.20/- supplied by the 2nd opposite party to his wine shop from where he has purchased. On reaching his residence he consumed one bottle of the soft drink he sensed different taste and on consuming almost of the drink he found some solid material in the bottle and immediately he spat out the drink fr...
Halfa Trading L.L.C., Sultanate of Oman, Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 20.09.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for complainant side 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 the original resident of Kerala now settled at Ruwi Sulthanate of Oman carrying in computers stationery manufacturing unit. Complainant for his business wanted to install machineries who run his business to buy machineries from the opposite party and accordingly he has ordered 3 sets of machineries computer stationery manufacturing machine 1) reel to pack 2) reel slitting machinery and accessories for the value of Rs.26,00,000/- ordered the supply for the same from opposite party on the basis of an agreement of contract and the opposite party to dispatch the machinery on 5.3.07 from Cochi...
A.Arjunan Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner in accordance with law and without reference to the charge memo, dated 15.05.2009. 2.This writ petition was once dismissed for default by this Court by order dated 04.01.2011. On the petitioner filing an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011, the same was restored on 31.03.2011. 3.On notice from this Court, the first respondent, Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, has filed a counter affidavit dated 'nil' February 2011. In the counter affidavit, the reason for not promoting the petitioner has set out in paragraph and in paragraph 15, are as follows: 4...Tr.A.Arjunan, HC 750 was enlisted as Gr.II.PC on 15.11.1978 in the Police department and he was upgraded as Gr.I.PC on 24.11.1994. Further he was upgraded as Head Constable on 25.11.1999. He has competed 25 years of service including 10 years of service as Head Constable on 24.11.2009. He is due for upgradation as SSI...
Ms.Dcw Employees Co Operative Canteen Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petitioner is a DCW employees Co-operative Canteen, represented through its Special Officer, situated in Arumuganeri. In this writ petition, they have challenged the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA 794(13) 2009. By the impugned order, the first respondent Tribunal rejected the review application and confirmed its earlier order dated 19.07.2010 dismissing the appeal and confirmed the order of the authorities in levying damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act). 2. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's establishment is a registered Society under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act run by the employees' on cooperative basis for supplying snacks and food packets on subsides and on marginal rates. The employer provides all infrastructure and bear the maintenance expenses and also grant substantial subsidy and the Society is running ...
Shri Padmavathy Cotton Mills Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Appellat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petitioner is a Cotton Mill represented by its Managing Partner and they have come forward to challenge the order, dated 06.08.2010. By the impugned order, the first respondent, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, rejected the petitioner's appeal in ATA No.538(13)2007, dated 06.08.2010. The petitioner seeks to challenge the Tribunal order which confirms the order of the second respondent, namely the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 29.06.2007 and wants to set aside both the orders.2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the standing counsel for the second respondent, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan took notice and notice of motion was ordered and interim stay was granted on condition the petitioner paying 50% of the amount covered by the impugned orders, within four weeks.3. The short point arises for consideration is that since the mill has incurred huge loss and become a sick unit, the levy of damages was valid. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »