Chennai Court February 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.
The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Chennai and Others Vs. F ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite party and praying to restore the telephone connection and to hold that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and to grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the loss and mental agony with costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, dt.30.03.2007 in COP.No.43/2000. After hearing the arguments of appellants side, finally on 28.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The appellants are opposite parties before the District Forum. The complainant filed a complaint for ordering to restore the telephone connection and to hold that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and to grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the loss and mental agony ...
Wg Cdr (Retd) H.S. Lubana and Another Vs. Union of India Rep by Its Se ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioners in these petitions have challenged the common impugned order of the 3rd respondent, who had issued the corrigendum PPO No.08/14/A/Rev/0500 of 2000 (in T.A.No.128 of 2010) and corrigendum PPO No.08/14/A/Rev/0499 of 2000 (in T.A.No.129 of 2010) cancelling PPO.No.08/14/A/Rev/1853 of 1999 and PPO.No.08.14/A/Rev/2251 of 1999 respectively have approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh for restoration of their pension as per PPO.No.08/14/A/Rev/1853 of 1999 and PPO.No.08.14/A/Rev/2251 of 1999 respectively. 2. The affidavit to the petition in T.A.No.128 of 2010 runs as follows. The petitioner in T.A.No.128 of 2010 joined Indian Air Force on 25.12.1964 as a Commissioned Officer and took premature retirement with effect from 02.10.1989 at the time when he was holding the rank of Wing Commander. The premature retirement of the petitioner was approved by the Government in the public interest and thereafter, he was a...
The Management Vs. the Controlling Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The 1st Writ Petition No.1258 of 2004 is filed by the management of the Cooperative Society seeking to challenge an order passed by the 1st respondent Controlling Authority in P.G.Case No.101 of 2002 dated 14.11.2003. By the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent computed the gratuity of a sum of Rs.1,09,163/- payable to the 2nd respondent workman. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the said order under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the appellate authority but has rushed to this Court contending that they have has no other alternate remedy. This statement made by the petitioner society is clearly erroneous and not supported by law.2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29.1.2004. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court directed the petitioner society to pay 50% of the terminal benefits within four weeks. Subsequently on 9.11.2004, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner did not comply with the said order and hence the ap...
K. Minakshi Sundaram Vs. the General Manager, Bank of India
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
The appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay compensatory damages amounting to Rs.5 lakhs and return the shares sold on 25.6.2002 and 11.08.2006. 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.28.01.2010 in C.C.69/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant, who was the customer of the opposite party bank, having OD Account No.687, pleding the shares owned by him, in various Companies, availed financial assistance to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs, for which, the shares were given as valuable ...
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Madurai Special Div ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Madurai, alleging deficiency against the opposite party and praying to Cease and desist the demands for payment of Rs.3,38,167/-, to execute the sale deed forthwith, to provide basic amenities, to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and to pay cost of this proceedings. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Madurai dt.13.3.2006 in CC.No.44/2001. After hearing the arguments of appellants side, finally on 28.01.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The appellant is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the appellant/opposite party claiming deficiency of service for non execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant and praying for to direct the opposite par...
Vakada Thirumurthulu Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to the ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who has been discharged on medical ground soon after his recruitment in the Indian Navy as a musician, has challenged the same before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.15284 of 2009 and the same after the constitution of the Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chennai was transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.182 of 2010. 2. The facts in brief as narrated in the affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner run as follows. The petitioner hails from a poor agricultural family and he has studied upto 10th standard and passed the same in the year 2005 and thereafter, he joined in Intermediate 1st year during 2005-06 and since he failed in one subject in the first year, he applied for a post in the Indian Navy and he has opted for the branch of Music. The petitioner was called for by a call letter t...
M/S.Sanco Trans Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
COMMON ORDER1. These writ petitions are covered by a judgment of this court in M/s.Hari CFS represented by its CFS Manager V.John Vasac and others v. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and others in W.P.(MD)Nos.2634 to 2636 of 2009, dated 04.02.2011. In that batch of writ petitions, similar contentions were raised. For the sake of repetition, they may be referred to. 2.The contentions of the petitioners in all the writ petitions were identical. The petitioners had stated that appropriate permissions were obtained from the second respondent for establishing CFS/ICD. By a public notice, the petitioners were appointed as Custodians of goods meant for Import/Export and after specifying the areas of CFS and that area was also declared as Customs area for the purpose of the Customs Act. The petitioners' companies were required to comply with the Customs Act provisions with regard to establishment of CFS/ICD...
Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Salzer Electronics Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Pending suit for infringement, passing off and for appropriate reliefs of injunction, rendition of accounts and damages in respect of the trade secrets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff came up with 6 applications, the details of which are as follows:-(i) O.A.No.925 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from committing infringement of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.(ii) O.A.No.926 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from passing off their electrical products as that of the plaintiff's.(iii) O.A.No.927 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner using the plaintiff's trade secrets, confidential information, consumer data, international standard certifications, product code, catalogue numbers and other information. (iv) A.No.4676 of 2010 under class 14 of the Letters Patent, to combine different causes of action, such as infringement, passing off etc....
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpn.Ltd. Vs. Co ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. In the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (which is required as the assessee is a State Government Undertaking), the appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Indian Oil Corporation ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. In the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (which is required as the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking), the appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted. The cross-objection is also dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »