Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
Y.John Murray and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Territorial Commander of the Salvation Army, removing the names of the petitioners from the rolls of the Salvation Army Soldiers. 2. I have heard Mr.Aagney Sail, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. All the petitioners herein are ordained members of the Booth Tucker Memorial Church, Vetturnimadam, Nagercoil. All of them were members of the Salvation Army of the said Church, but they have come up with the above writ petition, looking for a salvation from this Court, after being thrown out by the second respondent. 4. The Salvation Army is an integral part of the Christian Church although distinctive in governance and practice. The army's doctrine follows the mainstream of Christian belief and its articles of faith emphasise God's saving purposes. The movement was founded in 1865 by William Booth, who was Priest in the Methodist New Convention Church. In 1878, the movement adopted a quasi ...
Tag this Judgment!Komaran and anr. Vs. C.Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 16.9.2011 passed in I.A.No.1081 of 2011 in O.S.No.344 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam, Erode District. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2. The respondent filed suit O.S.No.344 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the enjoyment of respondent's/plaintiff's easementory right in the suit B schedule property by way of encroachment or putting hut in the said property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 28.7.2009. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed R.P.No.2 of 2011 for return of documents and notice was served on the revision petitioners/defendants. On 21.3.2011, the revision petitioners/ defendants appeared through counsel in the said petition. 3. Thereafter, on 25.4.2011, the revision petitioners/defendants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by way of I.A.No.1081 of 2011 for...
Tag this Judgment!The Sub Post Master, Old Bus Stand Post Office, Thoothukudi and Anothe ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.05.2010 in C.C.17/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The facts leading to this appeal:- The complainant/respondent had sent two registered post through first opposite party, on 16.10.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. having weight below 20 grams, for which, the first opposite party collected/charged Rs.28/- per registered post, which is in excess of Rs.3/-, ove...
Tag this Judgment!The Co-ordinator, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.,(Tamilnadu ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.11.2011, 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. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant enrolled with the Government Medical Insurance Scheme as a Government employee working as P.G.Teacher by payment of Rs.25/- per month as prescription for the medical scheme covering himself and for his family members. On 18.12.09 due to urgent treatment for her daughter Gayathri got admitted in the 2nd opposite partys hospital and undergone eye surgery on 19.12.09 and was discharged on 23.12.09 for which the complainant had spent Rs.52,698/- and when he claimed the same from the 1st opposite party under the insurance coverage which was repudiated on the ground that the treatment was taken without prior intimation and thereby he was compelled to pay the am...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Vaideeswaran Vs. the Proprietor M/S. Sri Karumariamman Hardwares ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.34000/- towards cost of purchase of cement, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh, and cost. 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.10.05.2010 in CC.No.81/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 08.12.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels 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 consumer unable to get a favourable order as desired, has come before us, as appellant. 2. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the complaint: The complainant had purchased 30 bags of LANCO brand cement on 23.10.2007, from the 1st opposite party, who is the seller, fro...
Tag this Judgment!Nestle India Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager and Others Vs. M. Gurub ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and prayed for a direction to stop the opposite parties from carrying out unfair trade practice of exhibiting false advertisement, to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation and costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and dismissed against the 4th opposite party, directed opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Ops 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before this Commission. This appeal come before us for hearing finally on 5.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perusing the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) Mrs. VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER The case of the complainant is as follows:- 1. The opposite party had advertised tha...
Tag this Judgment!C.S.R. Nursing Home, Rep. by Dr.C.S.R. Kumar and Another Vs. Nagarajan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the loss of his wife due to the negligence and carelessness and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.07.2009 in C.C.15/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to this appeal in brief:- The complainant admitted his wife by name Sasikala, herein after called Patient in the first opposite partys hospital, wherein, the second opposite party was working a...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Saxena Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to renew the policy to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of RS.20000/-. 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.04.05.2011 in CC.No.196/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.12.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels 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 complainant is the appellant. 2.Facts: The complainant had taken individual mediclaim policy, for one year from 28.5.2009 to 27.5.2010, and previously also he was regularly taking individual mediclaim and renewing the same in advance, as per the intimation given by the opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Gundlays Centre Vs. B. Ananthanarayanan ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The 1s Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to pay Rs.3,59,166.36 towards expenses incurred for the hospitalization of his son Rs.47,725/- for himself and Rs.56,592.50 for his wife, to renew the medical insurance, and to pay Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.2.2008 in COP No.158/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 21.112011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. Facts leading to this appeal: The 1st opposite party bank have formulated insurance arrangement for...
Tag this Judgment!The Sub Post Master, Old Bus Stand Post Office and Another Vs. R. Jeya ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.05.2010 in C.C.17/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The facts leading to this appeal:- The complainant/respondent had sent two registered post through first opposite party, on 16.10.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. having weight below 20 grams, for which, the first opposite party collected/charged Rs.28/- per registered post, which is in excess of Rs.3/-, ov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »