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.
Khaja Mohammed Vs. the Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The Petitioner, an unfortunate Ex-Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, who after rendering 14 years and 244 days of regular service, had approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing the Writ Petition for grant of his service pension, which was denied on the ground that the minimum service required for pension is 15 years for his rank and that there is a shortage of 121 days in granting the pension. The writ petition filed by the petitioner viz W.P.No.11101 of 1999 was transferred to this Tribunal as per Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.184 of 2010. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner as narrated in the affidavit to the petition run as follows:- The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 13.03.1962 as a combatant member in the trade of Electrician after undergoing necessary training in various field. The petitioner had put in 14 years and 24...
P.thenmozhi Subramaniam Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner, who is an elected President of Akkarai Kodivery Panchayat in Thukkanaickampalayam, Erode District, has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the order of the 1st respondent District Collector dated 30.9.2010, which concluded with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.10.2010 and seek for setting aside the same.2. Notice of Motion was ordered on 8.11.2010. Pending the Notice of Motion, this Court on the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the meeting, which was convened on 9.11.2010, but the decision taken in the meeting was directed not to be given effect to for a period of two weeks.3. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the interim order obtained by the petitioner, 7 Ward Members of the Village Panchayat led by K.V.Palanisamy filed M.P.No.3 of 2010 and get themselves impleaded vide order dated 6.1.2001. They have also filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 for vacating the interim order together with the counter affidavit dated 24...
Jubaida Ummal Vs. S.Abdul Azees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
1. This appeal has been arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.27 of 2006, dated 28.09.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.2. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2006 are as follows:-The defendant is the owner of the suit property. She borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a simple mortgage deed on 24.07.2002, which was duly executed, attested and registered. The defendant has undertook to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On 25.07.2003, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.40,000/- towards principal and interest and a receipt was also issued by the plaintiff for the same. Except this amount, the defendant has not paid any other amount. In spite of various demands, the defendant has failed to repay the balance amount and discharged the mortgage. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 13.05.2004 calling upon the defendant to repay the balance amount. The defe...
M/S.Oswak Mills Private Ltd. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to supply electricity bearing HT Service No.119 to the petitioner in peak hours also to enable the petitioner to continue to run the spilling mills.2. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent electricity board. In view of the order that is to be passed in this matter, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner claims to be the Spinning Mill and has made a request by letter dated 14.2.2011 to the first respondent to provide electricity supply during peak hours also.4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent electricity board states that the second respondent is the owner of the property. Petitioner counsel states that the second respondent will have no grievance if the first respondent electricity board passed order on the request lette...
S.R.G.Thayal and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. In view of the common issue involved, all the Writ Petitions have been taken up together and a common order is passed.2.Facts in brief:2.1.A Government Order was passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1317, Home (Police.9) Department, dated 08.09.1997 deciding to fill up 1000 vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, as existed in different ranges to the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issued a notification dated 02.04.1998 in pursuant to the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1317, Home (Police.9) Department, dated 08.09.1997 calling for applications to fill up 1000 vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It has been specifically mentioned in the said notification that, the selection would be made on a range wise basis at the respective ranges. 11 ranges have been earmarked for the purpose of selection. Each range has been given number of posts to be filled up separately with specific posts for...
M/S. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd., and Others Vs. V. Thangavelsamy, Red. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in EA No.19/2010 dt.09.11.2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, this commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. (Open court) 1. Revision Petition itself taken for disposal, by consent. 2. The respondent in this Revision Petition, as complainant, obtained an exparte order, wherein a direction has been given by the District Forum, to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,473/- alongwith 9% p.a., from 26.2.2007 till payment, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost, which was not satisfied, resulting execution petition by the Decree Holder, before the District Forum, where NBW was ordered to be issued, which is challenged in this revision. In this revision, when a stay petition has been filed, considering the scope of the case, a direction has bee...
Lic of India Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Ootacamund, the Nilgiris V ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- the sum assured, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/-. 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.30.7.2007 in CC.No.10/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 22.2.2011. 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 opposite party is the appellant. 2. The facts leading to this appeal: The complainants husband by name Iyyappan, had taken Jeevan Sanchay Plan Policy from the opposite party on 28.4.2001, for the sum assured Rs.50000/-, having the maturity period till 28.4.2016. Iyyappan died on 22.6.2003, leaving the complai...
M/S. L and T John Deere Pvt. Ltd., Vs. V. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to deliver the equipment of rails which is an essential tool to get down the tractor engine from the harvester for repair, to rectify the manufacturing defect, and to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation. 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.3.4.2009 in OP.No.34/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.2.2011. 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 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. Brief facts necessary for the dispose the appeal; The 1st respondent, in this appeal, who is the complainant in CC.No.34/2006, on the file ...
Church of South India and Another Vs. Thangammal and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation alongwith 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.26.9.2005 in OP.No.17/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.2.2011. 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 opposite parties 2 and 3 are the appellants. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal: The complainant / 1st respondent, having stomach pain, approached the 1st opposite party, who is working in the 2nd opposite party hospital, which is managed and controlled by the 3rd opposite party on 31.3.2004, for treatment,...
R. Jagannathan Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Builders and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to take possession of the defective flat, under a registered sale deed, to pay Rs.7925/- spent by the complainant towards property tax, alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, 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.17.3.2009 in OP.No.411/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 14.2.2011. 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. The complainant/ appellant, entered into an agreement, to purchase a flat, at ground floor, M. Lakshmi Apartments, No.5, 4th Street, Zackira Colony, Kodambakkam, fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »