Chennai Court April 2011 Judgments
The Branch Manager, Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. C. Govindan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Respondents 1and2 as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to replace the machine with a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2nd opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri dated 26.09.2008 in C.C.No.76/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.03.2011, 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 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The Respondents/complainants filed a complaint praying for the relief of directing the opposite parties to rep...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.D.The Uthangarai Agricultural Produ ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- for one Ayyappa Textiles who stored the property with the complainant in trusts and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and a compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- for delay and deficiency of service. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, dt.28.12.2006 in CC.No.38/1998. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.03.2011, 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 :- The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite party ...
Tag this Judgment!M.Selvaraj, Area Marketing Manager Vs. Lt. Col.Subir Dutta Roy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udhagamandalam, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.97,120/- as compensation, and to pay cost of the proceedings. 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 13.4.2009 in C.C.No.7/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.04.2011, 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 Respondent/complainant filed a complaint praying for the relief of directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.97,120/- as compensation, and to pay cost. 3. The details of the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Attur , Salem District and O ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Respondent as filed a complainant before the District Forum, Salem, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.99,950/- as compensation for negligence, and to pay cost of the proceedings. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Salem, dated 9.7.2007 in C.O.P.No.114/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.03.2011, 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 are the appellants. 2. The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint praying for the relief of directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.99,950/- as compensation for negligence, and to pay costs. 3. The details ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Kumbha Associates a Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Mr.P.Pand ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Madurai, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to lay a new flooring for the North west bed room and to rectify the defects in the complainants flat within a time to be stipulated by this Honble Forum failing which direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony, and to pay the cost of the proceedings. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Madurai, dated 20.12.07 in C.C.No.360/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.03.2011, 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, PRE...
Tag this Judgment!B.S.Anbazahan Vs. the Executive Engineer, and Administrative Officer
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to execute sale deed in respect of House bearing No.MIG 198 at II-Phase, Tamil Nadu New Housing Board at Krishnagiri, to pay compensation a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, dated 29.02.08 in C.C.No.17/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.03.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint again...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sasi Mahibalan Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insuranc ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment, to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the 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.26.11.2007 in C.C.59/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.04.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant, who is the owner of a car bearing Registration No.TN-34-A-6464, has insured the same with the opposite party, covering the period between 18....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Krishnaveni, M.B.B.S., D.G.O., Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
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 Rs.3,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant 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.14.03.2007 in C.C.65/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either 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 parties are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to this appeal:- The respondent/complainant after second delivery in the Government Hospital on 26.12.2003, having decided for family planning, underwent tubectomy operation, which was performed by the first opposite party, for which, a certificate was also given, a...
Tag this Judgment!Peddisetty Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence Rep by ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant challenging the order passed in Second Appeal dated 02.03.2010 of the first respondent vide No.23(14)/2009/D(GS-III), which was made against the ADGPSs letter No.B/40502/1232/07/AG/PS-4 (Imp-II), (First Appeal) dated 28.08.2008, has preferred this Original Application before this Tribunal under Section 14(2) the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The applicant No.10329607 L was enrolled in the Territorial Army (TA) on 10th January 2000 and thereafter, embodied to the regular forces ie., 21 Sub Area which is subjected to the Army Act Section 2(1)(e) and also Section 9(1) of the Territorial Army Act, 1948. According to the applicant, he had availed 19 days of Casual Leave from 16th August 2005 to 3rd September 2005 with permission to prefix on 14th and 15th August 2005 and suffix on 4th September 2005 and to report duty on 5th September 2005. While he was on Casual Leave, on 31.08.2005 the applicant wanted to visit his ...
Tag this Judgment!Plastvel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The importers herein filed a Bill of Entry for home consumption for clearance of reprocessed/recycled LDPE Polythene natural granules made out of washed and cleaned Polythene Scrap. The goods were tested and the Customs House test report stated that the sample is composed of reprocessed/recycled polythene granules made out of washed and cleaned Polythene scrap. The case was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner who enhanced the unit price to US$ 397.50 per MT as against the declared value of US$ 175 per MT. This order was challenged by the importers and vide order dt. 9.12.99, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the issue for retest at CIPET and held that “if on test, it is discovered that the imported goods are made of recycled/reprocessed material only, then in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the transaction value of US $ 175 has to be accepted”. Otherwise, the decision to enhance the value on par with virgin material would be justif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »