Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Thiagarajar Polytechnic Vs. C.Rajaveeran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
O R D E R1. This Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.02.2004 in R.E.A.No.954 of 1995 in REP.No.1/93 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Salem. By the said order, the Executing Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings thereby denying them to right to contest the claim of the first respondent.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus.The petitioner is a educational institution and a third party to the proceeding. The first respondent herein was the original land owner, whose lands were subject to land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (herein after referred to as the Act). The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the second respondent herein for the purpose of the petitioner institution. It appears that there was no challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and the land in question ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. M/S. Deepam Sizing ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
(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 pay a sum of Rs.156185/- with 18% interest, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards interest loss, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 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.11.04.2008 in OP.No.306/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011. 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 is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ 1st Respondent, had consigned, grey sheeting worth of Rs.1,56,185/- on 4.7.2002, to the consignee in Bihar, through the 2nd opposite party/carrier, entrustin...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-op. and Rural Development ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
(Prayer: The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Thiruvarur, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay Rs.83,078/- with interest towards additional amount collected, to return the original partition deed documents, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards loss, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Thiruvarur, dated 23.01.2008 in C.C.No.22/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on appellant side, 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 1st opposite party ...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu Through the District Collector theni and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
(Prayer: The Respondent as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.15000/- 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.21.8.2008 in OP.No.38/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011. 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, in OP.No.38/2008, on the file of District Forum, Theni, having suffered an adverse order, have come before this commission, for redressal. 2. The respondent, in this appeal as complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking direction for the issuance of a family ration card,...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Ranganathan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
(Prayer: The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udhagamandalam, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay Rs.12,266.71 towards medical expenses with interest and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. 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, Udhagamandalam, dated 13.7.07 in C.O.P.No.3/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011, 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 complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking for the relief of payment of mediclaim amount for Rs.12,266.71 with...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.A.V.Trading C. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.S.Anand @ Akash Vs. Ms.Vanitha Vijaya Kumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
O R D E R1. In an Article published in "The Matrimonial Strategist" (October 2003) titled "Children as Pawns:Who Determines Custody?", by Lawrence Jay Braunstein, the author states as follows:-"The division of assets in a divorce is a process rife with potential conflict, which varies according to the value of the assets and relative worth of the parties. More painful and much more difficult, however, is the determination of custody. Children are not assets to be divided. Their lives, already affected by the divorce, will be further impacted by the custody situation. Attorneys and Courts struggle with ways to determine which parent would be the better primary caretaker. If only there were a test ... Because there is not such a determining factor, the legal system has come up with many tests and people to evaluate them. Rather than simplify the decision, this process may have further complicated it. In addition to the questions of objectivity raised about the tests themselve...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nandakumar Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Impugned Notification Na.Ka.No.43060/ 08/A3/ Vu.E(Voo) dt.25.2.2011 and the subsequent Gazette Notification No.VI(2)/159(a-1)/2011 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.84 dt.1.3.2011 Part VI-Section 2 issued by the Inspector of Panchayats and the District Collector Thiruvallur District / the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the Inspector of Panchayats and the District Collector Thiruvallur District / the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the Post of the Village Panchayat President, Perumalpattu Village Thiruvallur Taluk & District.2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. Challenging the order of the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat and the consequent notification removing the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Sou.Sundaramoorthi Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order, dated 11.12.2010 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range. By the impugned order, the petitioner's application to conduct a public meeting near Korattur Bus stand was rejected.2.The petitioner had applied for permission in the capacity of Thiruvallur District in-charge of Naam Tamilar Party. In his application, dated 9.12.2010, the petitioner informed the third respondent that they intent to conduct a felicitation meeting for Seeman. In that meeting, apart from Seeman, M/s.Shahul Hameed (Tamil Muzhakkam) and Pugazendhi (Cinema Director) have consented to participate. They also sought for permission to use sound amplifier. 3.On receipt of the said representation, the second respondent by his order, dated 11.12.2010 had declined to grant permission by giving following reasons:(i)The Commissioner of Chennai Suburban Police by his order, dated 28.11.2010 had directed that no perm...
Tag this Judgment!S.Vetrivel and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Advocates Association and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. On a memo filed by the learned Judge-Commissioner, after the conclusion of the elections to the State Bar council on 4-3 2011, I passed an order on 8-3-2011, invalidating all the votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and at Padmanabhapuram. Aggrieved by the said order, the Presidents of the Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram Bar Associations have come up with the above applications seeking to recall the said order.2. I have heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.1600 of 2011, Mr.S.Muthuraman, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.1628 of 2011, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the Bar Council of India and Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, the fourth defendant appearing in person.3. To recapitulate, the last election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was held on 20.9.2005 and the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »