Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
C.Chandrasekaran Vs. R.Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1.This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.121 of 2004 by the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, wherein the Judgment and decree dated passed in Original Suit No.185 of 2001 by the Sub Court, Sankarankoil are reversed. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.185 of 2001 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant. 3. The epitome of the plaint averments can be stated like thus: The suit property is originally belonged to the plaintiff. In the year 1998 the suit property is worth of Rs.45,000/-. The plaintiff has mortgaged the suit property in Kuruvikulam Cooperative Land Development Bank. The defendant has desired to purchase the suit property. The plaintiff has informed the defendant about the mortgage debt which is in existence in favour of the said bank. The defendant has agreed to di...
Tag this Judgment!V. Manivanna Naicker Vs. the Chairman, United Commercial Bank, Head Of ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 09.08.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant availed agricultural loan of Rs.24,000/- from 3rd opposite party in the year 1988 by depositing the title deeds of his property as security and after clearing the debts when the 3rd opposite party was demanded to release the title deeds through letter dated 23.4.08 without returning the documents, the 3rd opposite party wrote a letter on 5.5.08 stating that the complainant repaid the loan amount alone and issued No due certificate and relating to the documents it is stated it got mixed with other documents and to furnish details regarding the date of dep...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Subramaniam, President Vs. the Managing Director, M/S. Ttk Pharma
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 05.08.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant being the Journalist, RTI activist, Consumer Protection Activist and Social worker, filed this complaint against the opposite party manufacturers and suppliers of the Kohinoor Brand of Condoms, for not providing the right specification and indication of the same on the covers of condoms sold which is a branded item where basic facts have been suppressed the specification applicable to Indian have not been adhere. Selling of uniform size with other countries specifications to all the consumers in India is most dangerous matter causing Aids, dissatisfaction, wr...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by Its Divisional Manager Vs. G.R ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of 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 JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st complainant having Matiz Car bearing Registration No.TN-M-39-Q-6422 insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 18.10.05 to 17.10.06. On 3.7.06, the vehicle met with an accident by collusion with another vehicle and the car damaged badly. After reporting the accident the surveyor inspected the accident spot and assessed the damage. The car was left for service to the authorized service centre and the surveyor after final assessment recommended for the settlement of Rs.1,85,500/- on salvage loss and thereby the opposite party insisted for acceptance letter to that offer and the complainant agreed for the same. Till 18.10.06 the opposite party wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sailor Sv Angotra Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
(Order of the Tribunal was made by Justice ACA Adityan) On behalf of the respondents, the learned Deputy Judge Advocate Lt Cdr Nitin Roy, HQ ENC, Visakhapatnam, represents that the respondents are taking steps to discharge the applicant and that will be done positively within four weeks. An affidavit to that effect has been filed. So, the respondents are hereby directed to discharge the applicant on compassionate ground on or before 30.09.2011. With this observation, this application is closed with a liberty to reopen, in case of non-compliance of the order. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan Vs. Ramaprabha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1.The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 against his wife for divorce for dissolving the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2003 between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The said case has been filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The respondent/wife had filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. while so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on 05.06.2007 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to her child and herself. Besides the respondent/wife has also prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for contesting the case and a furthe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Uma Maheshwari Vs. M/S. Sigma Computer Links
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
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 take old Canon Xerox machine and return the amount of Rs.66,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 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.04.05.2010 in C.C.68/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Argument of the appellant 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 approached the District Forum, seeking direction to take old Canon Xerox Machine and return the consideration of Rs.66,000/-, with compensation of Rs.50,00...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Sellumuthu, Prop.M.V.S.Nagar Annex Vs. T.K. Uppiliappan and Anoth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of 1st Respondent 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 JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. 1st complainant registered with the 1st opposite party for the purchase of two plots in the membership No.386 and 387 by paying necessary cost of Rs.38,000/- per plots by instalments and as per the agreement the opposite party did not registered the plot and evaded the same. Hence a notice was sent to the opposite party and a letter was sent on 1.1.08 and 9.1.08 assuring the plots will be registered by 2nd week of February 2008 since the opposite party not complied the assurance the complainant come forward with this complaint. 3. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant and as per the agreement for breach of contract the complainant should...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. V. Rajamani a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction against the opposite parties. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the 2nd opposite party in each complaint, in the above appeals, praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.27.12.2007 in O.P.No.31/2007. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.8.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order: COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.The 2nd opposite party, in all the above complaints, is the appellant in all the appeals. 2.This order shall dispose of the above said appeals, as agreed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 3.Common facts, necessary for the disposal of all the appeals. 4.The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Administrative Officer Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Vs. A. Keshavan ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
(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 the assured sum of Rs.10000/- 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.29.10.2008 in CC.No.688/2004. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 17.08.2011. 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:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 3rd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ 1st respondent, in this appeal, had taken a mediclaim policy, with the 1st opposite party, and on that basis, a cashless credit card facility was issued by the 2nd opposite party, for taking treatment in the empanelled hospital including the 3rd hospital also. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »