Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Velumoopan, and ors. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The writ petitioners 1 to 6 are represented by Dr.K.Chockalingam. The petitioners have inherited vast area of lands in North Valliyur Village, Radhapuram Taluk, within the Sub-Registration District of Nanguneri, Valliyur Sub-Registration, Tirunelveli Registration and Revenue District from their grandfather, Chinna Palavesa Moopan. 2. The petitioners have executed Power of Attorney on 25.9.2009 registered as document No.2810/4/2009, dated 25.9.2009 on the file of the District Registrar, North Chennai. As per the Power of Attorney, the Power Agent is entitled to deal with the property, including the handling of various cases, and the principals are all permanent residents of Valliyur Village. Since the power has been registered in the office of the second respondent, he has an obligation to forward the memorandum of power of attorney to the third respondent.3. The petitioners have made a representation through their Power Agent on 1.10.2010 to the second respondent requesting to compl...
Tag this Judgment!R.Chinna Durai, and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents to appoint them for the post of Food Safety Officer as all persons who have completed their B.Sc. Graduation at Annamalai University through distance mode prior to 15.2.2007 are being appointed as Food Safety Officer and the same concession should be available to them.2.It must be noted that the Government initially issued a G.O.Ms.No.452, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 5.4.2007 directing the Sanitary Inspectors working in the Corporation and Municipalities to be deputed for Food Inspector training. The said Government Order named 50 persons for being deputed to the said training. In that case, the premise to which such persons were sent for training is that they were having Diploma from Vinaya Mission Research Institute or Distance Education from Annamalai University and therefore they are educationally qualified for undergoing training. The name of the present petitioner finds at Ser...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Conveyors India Fabricators P.Ltd, and anr. Vs. Venturetech Soluti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Challenge in these appeals are the Orders of learned single Judge dated 8.2.2006 in Application No.222 of 2006 in C.S.No.831 of 2005 and Application No.242 of 2006 in C.S.No.833 of 2005 on the file of this Court dismissing the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. read with Order 14 Rule 8 of Original Side Rules. O.S.A.No.135 of 2006 was filed by M/s.Conveyors India Fabricators Private Limited, who is the defendant in C.S.No.831 of 2005. O.S.A.No.136 of 2006 has been preferred by Virgo Industries (Engineers) Private Limited, who is the defendant in C.S.No.833 of 2005. Since the issues arising in both the appeals are one and the same, both appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed by this Common Judgment.2. The appellant in O.S.A.No.135 of 2006 entered into an agreement with the respondent on 27.7.2005, whereby the appellant agreed to sell the superstructure and land forming plot No.66 (old No.42), Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial estate. The appellant in...
Tag this Judgment!Thiyagarajan. Vs. State by Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. An interesting but important question as to whether "Coffee" is an Essential Commodity as defined in Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act has come up for consideration in this appeal.2. The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore in S.T.C.No. 3 of 2011 wherein the Special Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Clause 4 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order 1977 read with Section 7 (1)(a)((ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and sentenced him to undergo S.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo S.I for 2 months.3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had obtained license for the manufacture of cattle feed at Thindal village, and the same was functioning in the name and style of "Star Mill". On 23.02.1994, the Inspector of Police, CS CID, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kcp Ltd. Vs. the Superintending Engineer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to implement 20% power cut and allow the petitioner to achieve the quota demand of 3400 KVA and utilize the quota energy of 7,19,504 units every month from March, 2011 and to permit the petitioner to utilize/consume the energy generated/banked through wind mills in addition to the quota fixed and prepare the CC bill accordingly instead of fixing the quota demand of 2562 KVA and quota energy of 16401 units and consequently direct the respondent to refund the total sum of Rs.12,37,292/- to the petitioner wrongly levied and collected towards penalty (Rs.4,05,884/- from June 2010 to September 2010 and Rs.8,31,408/- in February, 2011).2. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent electricity board. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioner is a consumer of High Tension Electricity Power supply under HT SC No.1044. Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!R.Hari Prasaadh. Vs. the Registrar University of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the communication sent by the Controller of Examinations, the 2nd respondent herein dated 09.12.2010. In that communication, the petitioner herein, a M.L. Student Non-Semester pattern wanting to write the examination during December 2010 was informed of the revised penal fees stipulated by the University. The petitioner was informed that the M.L. degree (Non-Semester) both regular and private study candidate who have not completed the degree examination within the stipulated time and were having arrear of papers are permitted to appear for December 2010 examination for all branches from I to VII after collecting the penal fee of Rs.30,000/-, besides collection of five times of prescribed examination fee for each paper. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to remit the penal fee of Rs.20,000/- and the examination fee of Rs.250/- each paper as well as the balance fee of Rs.10,000/- immediately by ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Tatra Vectra Motors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The brief facts of the case are that the assesses imported “CKD components” during the year 1998 and 2000 and Customs duty thereon was assessed by loading 5% of the value over and above the invoice value on the ground that the overseas supplier and the importer are “related persons”, and that the relationship has influenced the price of the goods imported. Accordingly, the imported goods were cleared by paying duty on the invoice value stepped up by 5%. Subsequently, they filed an appeal against the loading of value and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 20.04.2001, set aside the loading on the ground that what is paid by way of royalty is explicitly towards post-import activities and that there is no nexus between the royalty payable and the imported goods. Pursuant to the above, the assessees filed a claim for refund on 20th March, 2003 which was dismissed as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim, rejecting t...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Canara Bank, Salem Vs. A. Ponnusamy and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
(Prayer: The first respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the maturity amount of Rs.12,800/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and discomfort and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards 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.18.04.2007 in C.C.113/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels 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 4th opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/first respondent had purchased a Certificate from the first opposite party under the UTI MEP 92 for the period from 1992 to March 2002, having the maturity value of Rs.12,800/-. After ma...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Executive Engineer and Other ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
(Prayer: The respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to rectify the defective meter and restore the service connection bearing No.929 of the complainant, to pay Rs.1 lakh for damages for causing mental agony and deficiency in service, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards 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.22.09.2008 in C.C.150/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels 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 first complainant is the landlord and the second complainant is her tenant, who is conducting a Rice Mundy in the premises belonged to f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narayanan Vs. N. Devarajalu
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
(Prayer: The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to re-imburse the amount of Rs.1,89,251/- which was incurred by way re-work and payment of excess amount to the opposite party, to pay Rs.1 lakh for the damages, loss, mental agony and stress, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards 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.20.08.2008 in C.C.134/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the 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 opposite party having suffered an adverse order, according to him, in the hands of the District Forum, dated 20.08.2008, has come before this Commission for redress...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »