Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.N. Rumesh Babu and Others
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, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- with interest from the date of complaint till realization and costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, dated 17.04.08 in C.C.No.37/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.3.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on 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 MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants/respondents filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for compensation due to the fire accident in their factory on the basis of the insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. and Another Vs. C. Raja
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
(Prayer: 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 a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for undelivered of the RC Book of the complainant, to delivery the RC Book pertaining TN-28-J-1950 and to pay the 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.19.09.2007 in C.C.24/2003. 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Deficiency alleged as follows claiming compensation: In the auction conducted by the opposite parties on 19.09.2002, the complainant purchased the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-28-J-19...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sudha Vs. the General Manager, City Bank and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
(Prayer: The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,10,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing till the date of realization with 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.31.10.2007 in C.C.128/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.03.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant is having Savings Bank Account in the Citi Bank and the account No.5-362152-447. In addition, she is also having Debit Card bearing No.5081-5944-0493-4096 as well as Credit Card No.4550-3889-9098-...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Kaleel Rahman Vs. the Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank and Oth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
(Prayer: 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.33,507/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and Rs.16,493/- for deficiency in service. 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.04.1.2008 in OP.No.16/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 22.3.2011. 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, who is having bank account, with the 1st opposite party bank, had issued a cheque for Rs.3507/-, towards premium for his three policies, taken with 2nd opposite party, to the 3rd opposite party, who was the agent. The 3rd...
Tag this Judgment!Malar Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Arun Prasath D.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
COMMON (Judgment of this Court was delivered by V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.)These appeals are directed against the order dated 08.04.2010 made in O.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2010 in C.S.No.24 of 2010.2.The brief facts of the cases are as follows:(i) The Plaintiff is the appellant. The Plaintiff filed Original Applications in O.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2010 seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant by himself, his servants, agents or assigns, or anyone claiming through them from in any manner passing off the respondent/defendant's products and services as "malar tv" or "MALAR.TV" bearing the offending trade mark with identical and/or deceptively similar colour scheme, get up and write up as and for the trade mark of the plaintiff viz., "malar tv" or "MALAR.TV" and the domain name "MALARTV.IN" and "MALARTV.COM" either by misrepresentation to the public and offering for sale or in any manner advertising on the internet or in any other communication media by dissemination of signals by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Needle Industries (India) Pv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the recovery of interest of Rs.1,84,600/- on delayed payment of excise duty on jig wires and jig rods manufactured and captively consumed during the period May 2000 to August 2002, and appropriating the same out of the rebate amount sanctioned to the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. Duty liability of the assessees has not been determined finally as the assessees have challenged the liability to duty in an appeal bearing No.E/837/2006. The question of recovery of interest will arise only when the duty liability is finally determined. Therefore, the lower appellate authority has rightly set aside the recovery of the said amount at this stage i.e. prior to determination of duty liability which is pending before the tribunal. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. 3. The cross objection being only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s ap...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer, Tiruvarur District and Another Vs. S. Krishnasamy ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
(Prayer: 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 refund Rs.1452/-, Rs.70/- and Rs.1040/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of RS.5000/-. 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.28.11.2007 in OP.No.20/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.3.2011. 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 1st and 2nd opposite parties, in CC.No.20/2007, on the file of District Forum Tiruvarur, aggrieved by the order dt.28.11.2007, have come to this commission, as appellants. 2. The complainant/respondent, being an agriculturist, had obtained an agricultural loan,...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Padmanabhan and Others Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporatio ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
(Prayer: The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,87,778/- with 18% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- 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.21.8.2008 in OP.No.28/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.3.2011. 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 complainants are the appellants. 2. The complainants/appellants, had borrowed a loan from Vysya Bank Housing Finance Ltd., to the extent of Rs.13,00,000/-, which was taken over by the opposite party, at the request of the complainants, and the complainants who have agreed to repay...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director Vs. G. Satheesh Kumar and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
(Prayer: The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the first opposite party to pay the tour benefit expenses as advertised, to pay Rs.25,000/- for the disappointment for deficiency of service and to pay the 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.15.02.2007 in C.C.29/2002. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.03.2011, 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 first opposite party is the appellant. 2. The first opposite party, who is the manufacturer of Safety Match Boxes called We Two, announced a tour scheme, for the purchasers of their Match Boxes, which contains a price coupon. Attracted by this Scheme f...
Tag this Judgment!The Cardamom Planters Association College Bodinayakkanur Rep. by Its P ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
(Prayer: The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.450000/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. 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.10.4.2008 in OP.No.154/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.3.2011. 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 1st opposite party, in CC.No.154/2007, on the file of District Forum, Theni, is the appellant. 2. The complainant/1st respondent, was a student of the 1st opposite party/ appellant-college, during the year 2004 to 2007. For the students studying in the 1st opposite party college, the 2nd opposite party...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »