Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Sri Vasudharini Enterprises Civil Engineering, Contractors and Ea ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
Petition dt.10.03.2004, was filed, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.38,00,000/- towards the HD Excavator cost, alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhsfor loss of business, Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.25000/-. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 12.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the material papers on records, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This is a petition, filed under Sec.12 r/w17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (herein after called the Act). 2. Brief facts, leading to this case: The complainants, reputed Civil Engineering Contractors and Earth Movers, having entered into an agreement with Afcon Infrastructure Ltd., to assist them for laying the road availing loan from the Centurion Bank Ltd., had purchased an Hydrolic HD Excavator with HD bucket and kit, from the 2nd opposite party on 16.8.2002, for a sum of Rs.38 lakh...
M/S.Professional Couriers, Rep.by Mr.Rajasekhar and Another Vs. M/S. V ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
(This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 01.07.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order :) ORDER J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties 1 to 4 in the complaint are the appellants herein. 2. The opposite parties have filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Udagamandalam in COP No.31/2003 dated 22.08.2007 directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,185/- towards the value of garments lost and a sum of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and sufferings with costs of Rs.500/-, on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the goods booked by the complainant. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 4.12.2001 the complainant sent a parcel containing garments valued at Rs.6,185/- through the 1st opposite party for safe carriage and delivery to the consignee, but the parcel was not delivered to...
M/S. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by Its Senior Divisional Manager ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 22.06.2011 and on hearing the arguments of appellants counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order : ORDER J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful opposite party in the complaint is the appellant herein. 2. The opposite party has filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in C.C.No.184/2004 dated 10.12.2008 directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.52,148/- being the repair charges and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by this order opposite party has preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Pentium 2 C.D ROM Multimedia Computer and Alied Equipments which were insured with the appellant/opposite party for Rs.1,85,000/- in January 2001 and the policy was issued by the opposite party only after verification of the equipments and th...
Jbm Auto System Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Credit of Rs.13,966/- has been disallowed on man power supply service availed for garden maintenance work on the ground that it is not an eligible input service for availing CENDVAT credit of service tax in terms of the definition of “input service” as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and interest has been levied thereon along with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. I have heard both sides. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has granted consent to the assessees to manufacture goods subject to condition of gardening in the plant premises - the industry is required to ensure that minimum three varieties of trees (Eucalyptus, Subabul and any other suitable variety) are planted at the destiny of not less than 1000 trees per acre of land. The requirement of permission of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is as per Section 41A of the Factories Act, 1948 as amended in 1987 and the consent order has been renewed from time to time...
Vijaya and Another Vs. M/S. Kumaran Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.14,893/- towards the interest amount alongwith future interest at 24% on Rs.67700/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh 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.14.7.2008 in CC.No.144/2004. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 6.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The complainants are the appellants. 2. The 2nd complainant is the husband of the 1st complainant, who is working as a teacher at Hindu Cornation School, Maduranthagam, a Government aided school. The husband was suffering from kidney ai...
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-export) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has rejected the request of the appellants to amend 191 shipping bills by deletion of EPCG licence number indicated therein, under the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962. The appellants had obtained licences from the DGFT under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) and, in return, for enjoying the benefit of import of capital goods at concessional rate of duty, the appellants had undertaken to fulfill the export obligation under the licences. Export obligations under two EPCG licences bearing numbers 0430004933 and 0430002038 were completed. In respect of the first licence, appellants had submitted details of export obligation fulfilled through export under cover of 416 shipping bills. After verifying the details, the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade at Chennai had issued the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) which reads as under:- File No.:04/21/021/00050/AM08 Dated : 17.04.2007 R...
The Chief General Manager, Southern Railways and Others Vs. D. Varatha ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 29.06.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order : ORDER J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties in the complaint are the appellants herein. 2. The appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in COP No.273/2003 dated 28.09.2007 directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the multiple fracture/injuries sustained by the complainant while going over the foot over bridge at Egmore Railway station when the iron fence fell over him, on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 13.8.2002 at about 7.15 pm when the complainant was going over the foot over fridge at Egmore Station to reach platform No.4 with a valid reserved ticket to board...
Sadashiv Gajanana Bhat Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Gover ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant is admittedly a Gentleman Cadet of the Indian Army in SSC (NT)-88 Course and while he was undergoing training in the Officers Training Academy at St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, he was boarded out on medical grounds with a remark that, the cadet/applicant is not recommended for retention and further training. Challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide order No.133/A/GS, dated 29th August 2009, which withdrew the applicant from the Academy with immediate effect, and in the alternative for exemplary compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with this application. 2. The respondents in their joint counter would contend that the applicant does not fall within the definition of Section 2 of the Army Act 1950 read with Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the applicant. In support of their conten...
The Post Master (Hsg 1) Dindigul Head Post Office and Another Vs. Sri. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 29.06.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order : J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in the complaint are the appellants herein. 2. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Forum, Dindigul in C.C.No.29/2008, dated 24.2.2010 directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of complaint till realization with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 3. The case of the complainant is that he sent a registered post A/D booked at Suramangalam Head Post Office on 2.1.2008 addressed to the Honble President, Honble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul 624 001. But the above registered letter booked by him on 2.1.2008 was delivered to the addressee only on 24.1.2008 and that this amounts to defic...
The Thashildar Srivilliputhur Taluk Office Sriviliputhur Vs. G. Lingam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to measure the land, and to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation. 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.15.02.2010 in CC.No.50/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 06.07.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant, having purchased a property, under registered sale deed dt.24.3.2006, in old Survey No.388, New Survey No.511/28, had approached the opposite party for measuring the same, paying the fee of Rs.80/- on 6.10.2006, by giving an application. Not only that, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »