Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
Savera Hotel, (a Unit of Savera Industries Ltd), Rep. by Its Managing ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.10.2011, 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 party is the appellant. 2. Complainant availed a new year eve entertainment function held by the opposite partys hotel on the eve of new year 2008 on 31.12.07 by obtaining ticket for the same by paying Rs.2,999/- and unexpectedly at about 11.30 p.m there was an accident due to the collapsing of stage arranged by the opposite party for the function in which certain people drowned in the swimming pool and the complainants also alleged they have got entangled in the tragedy and subsequently managed to came out with the assistance of other persons and had treatment for the injuries sustained and in the occurrence they lost their belongings including number of mobile cells precious jewel and other items ...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Manager, M/S. Abt Ltd. Vs. R. Nagaraj and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 3.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of 2nd respondents 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. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. 1st Respondent/Complainant purchased Omni Maruthi Car from the 1st opposite party through the finance availed from 2nd opposite party for the vehicle having registration No.TN 38 S 6777 and repaid the entire loan before 2008. When the 2nd opposite party approached for the return of original R.C book, insurance and for no due certificate to clear the endorsement in the RC book, the 2nd opposite party stated the original RC book and the insurance policy are not handed over to them by the 1st opposite party and whereas the 1st opposite party informed they delivered the same to the 2nd opposite party as early as on 11.2.03 itself. Hence the complainant sent a le...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Manager, Vst Auto Agency Ltd. and Others Vs. Vasudevan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellant 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. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. Complainant purchased a Tata Indigo Lx Dicor car bearing registration No.TN-48-J-5758 on 31.7.07 for Rs.5,86,734/- from the 1st opposite party and also spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards the purpose of using the car on road. From the date of purchase itself the complainant noticed meritorious defects in the said car as many as 10 defects mentioned in the complaint and handed over to the 1st respondent/1st opposite party for service and in spite of it 1st opposite party returned the car after service stating the cars defects were rectified and in spite of the same the defects were found continued. The opposite parties have provided the defective car whic...
Tag this Judgment!Lt Col (Ts) Sasanka Shekhar SwaIn Vs. Union of India, Through the Secr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. There were eight charges framed against the applicant on 29.07.2000. (i) The first charge is, under Army Act Section 63, an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at Secunderabad, on 4th September 1999, improperly obtained for himself sick-in-quarters for 72 hours, from the Duty Medical Officer, Military Hospital Secunderabad, whereas actually he was advised only light duties by MR-4059X Lt Col KRM Rao, Classified Specialist (Medicine and Cardiology) at the aforesaid hospital, as he well knew. (ii) The second charge is, under Army Act Section 41(2), disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in that he, at Secunderabad, on 2nd July 1999, having been ordered by IC-28423K Brig SS Dhaka, SM, the Commandant, Army Ordnance Corps Centre, Secunderabad, vide movement order No.C/20502/Pos/A3/CHQ dated 1st July ...
Tag this Judgment!P.Janaki. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
1. Both these writ petitions revolve around a simple question as to whether a person elected directly by the electorate, as the President of a Village Panchayat, is entitled to cast his vote in the election to the post of Vice President of the Village Panchayat or not.2. I have heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran and Mr.P.Arun Jayatram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.3. W.P.No.12905 of 2011 is filed by a person, who was elected as the Councilor from Ward No.8 of Appananallur Village Panchayat, in the elections held on 19.10.2011. The Village Panchayat comprises of 9 wards. After the election of the President of the Panchayat and the election of 9 Ward members, the Returning Officer convened the meeting of the Panchayat for the purpose of electing the Vice President on 29.10.2011. According to the petitioner, she had the support of 4 members, but one of her supporters by name D.Saravanan elected as ...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Selvakumar Vs. Dr. K. Latha and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 24.10.2011, 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 filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss mental agony and sufferings due to the negligence of opposite parties regarding the delivery of the child and for the costs. 2. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 15.1.2001 at the clinic at Chidambaram for consultation for treatment for the expected delivery of her child after having initial examination at Chennai. The complainant used to have the consultation and treatment with the 1st opposite party after consulting on 15.1.01 regular tests were taken and having gestational diabetic case, 1st opposite party i...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhushana, Gupta Korada and Others Vs. American Express Banking ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
(This complaint dt. 04.01.2005 filed against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service, claiming Rs.10 lakhs mental agony, to pay Rs.9,00,325/- (i.e. the value of TCs lost) and interest at 12% from the date of loss of TCs, interest calculated upto 08.12.2004 is Rs.1,53,000/-. This petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 11.10.2011, 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 complainants, claiming to be the consumers, have filed this case for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.20,53,325/-, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties on the following grounds. 2. The complainants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and their son is the third complainant. In order to attend the eldest sons marriage of the first complainant, at Poland, as well as to visit places of tourist, planned to club...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Frank Kiruba, Kiruba Hospital Vs. S. Raja
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 3.11.2011, 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 party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and discomfort and Rs.2,000/- as costs for the wrongful treatment given by the opposite party. 3. Complainant was admitted in opposite partys hospital on 3.5.2000 for the treatment of non union fracture right tibia and the operation was conducted after payment of Rs.50,000/- and discharged on 15.5.2000 within a few days since the complainant had pain on the right leg because of the low standard plate fixed by the opposite party and after informing the broken plate found opposite party perf...
Tag this Judgment!A.Balasubramanian Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
1. All the four writ petitions arises out of identical issue, i.e., whether the respondent Municipalities (Virudhunagar, Srivilliputhur and Rajapalayam respectively) were entitled to insist upon licence to be held by a person privately running cycle stand in terms of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act?2.The first two writ petitions were filed in respect of Virudhunagar municipality. In W.P.(MD)No.8375 of 2007, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent Virudhunagar Municipality to issue license to the petitioner to run a cycle stand. The first writ petition was admitted on 7.7.2008.3.In the second writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.2625 of 2008), the prayer was to set aside the order dated 24.12.2007, wherein the municipality considered the application of the petitioner dated 23.2.2001 and other similarly placed persons and passed a Resolution No.592 on 31.10.2007. As per the said resolution, the municipality insisted that for the purpose of getting licence for having a vehi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasan Vs. A. Saravanan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellant 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 complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction to repay Rs.41,735/- being the cost of computers purchased from the opposite party with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and for costs. 3. Complainant purchased two computers and UPS from the opposite party by paying Rs.41,735/- and Rs.5,355/- for spare parts on 16.12.06 and as the computers were not functioning he sent both the computers during March 2007 to the opposite party to rectify the defects and the opposite party neither rectified the defects nor returned the computers and the bills issued for the same by the complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »