Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank Vs. P. Vijayan and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(Prayer: The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri alleging deficiency against the opposite party to return the title deeds to the complainant and award Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for mental agony caused to them and award cost of the complaint. 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, Erode, dated 16.11.2007 in COP. No.46/2004. 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 complainants/respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking the relief to ret...
Tag this Judgment!C. Rajan Vs. the Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary to Government an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A dismissed Sepoy from the Army has challenged the order of Court Martial by way of filing W.P.No.17429 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner reads as follows:- The petitioner has enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and he had served at Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir State in 201 Engineer Regiment. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Ranji in Bihar State. During his service, he was charged under Sections 39(f), 48 and 39(a) of the Army Act, for having found in a place prohibited by local order without a pass or written leave, and found under intoxication and absenting without leave. 2(a) The applicant has given his remarks for the said charges as f...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.Vijayendran Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, D.Muthulakshmi, under a settlement deed dated 23.8.2010 and presented it for registration in the office of the second respondent. The second respondent, without registering the deed and without assigning any reason, is keeping it as pending Document No.P1243 of 2010. The petitioner has also paid the entire stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the settlement deed. On enquiry, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to produce the title deeds relating to the property sought to be settled by him in favour of his wife, failing which the registration will be refused. The operative portion of the communication of the second respondent dated 15.11.2010 is as follows:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED2. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the second respondent has passed an order on 28.1.2011 ...
Tag this Judgment!Srm University Vs. the Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
ORDER1. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated below.2.1. The writ petitioner was declared as an institution deemed to be a university as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for brevity, "UGC Act") in August, 2002 and it is stated to have campuses and courses under its ambit situated at Chennai and Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh. As per the decision in a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India (W.P.(Civil) No.142 of 2006), wherein the Supreme Court considered a dispute regarding the functioning of deemed universities all over India, the petitioner/University was categorised under 'B' category, whose recognition was made subject to review.2.2. On 28.8.2007, the petitioner has sent a proposal to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for creating a new campus in Tiruchirapalli to house a medical college and an engineering college under it as off-campus institutions. S...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order passed in C.M.P.No.41 of 2007 in S.C.No.118 of 2006 on 14.03.2007 under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act and under Sections 53 and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:(i) The case has been registered by the respondent against the petitioner/accused under Sections 376, 417 I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent filed the petition in C.M.P.No.41/2007 in S.C.No.118/2006 to direct the petitioner/accused person to part with his blood sample as well as to direct P.W.1/Mahalakshmi to part with the blood sample of her male child for D.N.A test before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras. (ii) The petitioner/accused filed his counter affidavit stating that the D.N.A test ought to have been done by the prosecution during the time of investigation. Now, investigation is over, charge sheet was filed and witnesses were examined. So there is no necessity for conducting D.N.A. Test. H...
Tag this Judgment!Samraj Engineering Controls Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard both sides. The entire case of the department is based on the presumption that the coating powder on which the appellants have taken credit was given to the job worker on payment and hence the credit should be reversed. However, I find that the appellants have represented before both the authorities below that merely a debit note was issued for accounting purposes but no charges were received from the job worker for the coating powder. A letter dt. 30.11.2009 has also been produced from the job worker (at page 26 of the appeal papers) stating that no payment has been made by the job worker. Further, it is seen that the metal parts which were sent for job work (powder coating) have been sent back by the job worker within 180 days stipulated under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As such, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Ld. SDR fairly states that no verification has been made as to whether any a...
Tag this Judgment!Promising Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Heard ld. SDR. No one is present for the appellants despite notice. The defect pointed out by the Registry has not yet been rectified. As such, the defective appeal is dismissed as not maintainable....
Tag this Judgment!Elavarasan, Special Officer Vs. K. Panneer Selvam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
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 pay Rs.3 lakhs towards the mental agony and pain and deficiency in service and the interest for Rs.1,30,425/- at Re.2/- per month per Rs.200/- from 1.5.2007 till 25.2.2008 [date of issue of the cheque] with interest at 24% per annum with 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.12.12.2008 in C.C.78/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of the respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in C.C.78/2008, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem, unable to resist ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. G. Bama, Proprietrix Vs. Mrs.P. Metilda
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
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 pay Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, mental agony and nervous shock, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation along with 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.07.03.2008 in C.C.288/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.03.2011, 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 respondent in this appeal, as complainant in O.P.288/2007, claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and nervous shock, in addition to, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- as co...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager Vs. M/S. S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Erode, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay the insured value of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant, to pay interest at 12% on Rs.4,00,000/- from 1,9,03 till date of payment, to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and to bear the cost of litigation. 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, Erode, dated 17.04.2008 in COP. No.61/2004. 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 party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the opposite party for the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »