Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Syndicate Printers Vs. the Regional Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 25.11.2005 made in EIOP.No.408/2001 by the Employees Insurance Court/Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai herein after referred to as the ESI Court.2. The Appellant/Syndicate Printers represented by its Proprietor V.Chockalingam filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order dated 6.9.2000 and the consequent demand passed under Section 45A of the Act, demanding Rs.13,967/- towards contribution for the period from 25.11.1984 to 31.8.1986. The Appellant contended that he was not served with the copy of the report of the Inspector, which report formed the basis for the impugned show cause notices, the determination under Section 45A of the Act and the demands that followed.3. On the side of the Appellant, the attendance registers for the period from 1984 to 1986, the copy of the judgement in CC.No.9385/1986 on the file of the II ...
Tag this Judgment!M.Esakimuthu Vs. the Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
O R D E R1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the dismissal of the I.D.No.165 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent confirming the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent.Facts in brief:2.The petitioner herein was working as a Conductor with the second respondent. He had been working in the said capacity from 1975 onwards. An order of suspension was passed against the petitioner by the second respondent on 12.03.1992. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 30.03.1992 on the ground that, the petitioner had misappropriated the money due to the second respondent by stealing ticket books and invoices belonging to the other buses and used them in the bus in which he was plying. The said charges are pertaining to the period between November 1991 to February 1992. It is also stated in the charge memo that, during the enquiry it came to the knowledge that excess diesel has been used in a particular bus a...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.M.Karunanidhi Vs. Mr.N.Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
O R D E R1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to transfer the complaint in C.C.No.171 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ariyalur to any other Court outside the Jurisdiction of Ariyalur District in the interest of Justice.2. Heard Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Valliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner implicated as an accused in criminal complaint given by the respondent, who is a practicing Advocate in Ariyalur and the said complaint was taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur in C.C.No.171 of 2009 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending. He would also submit that the petitioner as an accused had raised various defence in the case and he has got good chances of success in the said case, if his defence have been permitted...
Tag this Judgment!A.Dhanasekaran and anr. Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The first writ petition is filed by one A.Dhanasekaran, S/o R.Athiappan, challenging an order of the second respondent Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem vide order dated 2.8.2010 and seeks to set aside the same. 2.By the aforesaid order, the Joint Commissioner had formed a 15 member Thiruppani Committee and also made the third respondent Executive Officer of Arulmigu Athanooramman Temple as its Secretary and Treasurer with conditions. The term of the office of Thiruppani Committee was fixed as one year from the date of the order. When that writ petition came up on 24.01.2011, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Notice was directed to be served to Thiruppani Committee, i.e., the fourth respondent privately. On notice, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appeared for fourth respondent. Further, counter affidavits, dated 13.2.2011 were filed by the third respondent in the fir...
Tag this Judgment!The Junior Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Nagapattinam District ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(Prayer: The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.125/- alongwith compensation of Rs.15000/- 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.20.12.2007 in CC. No.26/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent, who is the consumer of electricity, from the opposite party, through service connection No.258, was paying regularly the consumption charges. But without proper assessment, the opposite party had collected an excess sum o...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Nageshwar and Others M/S. K.S.S. Industries, Rep. by Its Manager, ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(Prayer: The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.23,613/- along with the interest @ rate of 24% p.a from 10.1.2000 till date of payment, to pay Rs.11,417/- being the expenses incurred by the complainant, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,500/- towards cost. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 3 and 4. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 3, 4 and 6, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore, dated 21.03.2006 in COP. No.316/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.03.2011, 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 parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Travels (P) Ltd., Rep. by General Manager Vs. Mohamed Meeran, ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(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 a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- being the value of the jewels, to pay Rs.13,000/- being the cash, and to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. 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.16.04.2008 in C.C.67/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perused the documents, Written Submission of the appellant as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant, along with his family members traveled from Devipattinam to Chennai on 13.04.2005 in the bus operated by the opposite party, bearing Registration No.PY-01-X-5656, which starte...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Customer Service, City Bank N.A., Chennai and Another Vs. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(Prayer: The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to send a summon to the opposite parties and take into consideration all the documents filed along with the complainant and the opposite parties under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act and punish the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the illegal threat. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1and2 praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Erode, dated 2.5.2007 in COP. No.195/2006. 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 JUDICI...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager M/S. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. K. Balaji
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to replace the old and rusted tuner, to return Rs.1350/-, to pay Rs.6500/- towards expenses, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/-. 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.27.05.2008 in CC. No.24/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel on eitherside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The appellant who suffered an adverse order, having remained exparte before the District Forum, has come to this commission, for redressal. 2. The respondent/complainant, had purchased an Onida TV. The opposite party is th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramu and Another Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
The appellant as complainant in F.A.120/2009 filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh towards the deficiency in service, lost opportunities and promised interest till date, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards damages for mental agony and pain, to Rs.25,000/- towards time, money spent and cost of this complaint. The appellant as complainant in F.A.121/2009, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,06,437.50 towards the deficiency in service, lost opportunites and promised interest till date, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and pain and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards time, money spent and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the second opposite party, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the order of the District Forum dt.3.02.2009 in C.C.271/2006 and C.C.272/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »