Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
The Manager Indian Overseas Bank (Melur) TuticorIn Vs. V. Antony Victo ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, to deposit Rs.4,41,191/- alogwtih10.5% interest. 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.01.03.2007 in CC.No.61/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.08.2011. 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 opposite party having failed in their attempt, to resist the consumer complaint successfully, have come to this commission, as appellant. 2. The facts relating to the case in brief: The complainants mother had deposited a sum of Rs.3,23,287/-, with the opposite party bank on 11.3.2000, for ...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Thuraiyur Road and Ano ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 05.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellant 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 parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as insured amount towards the accident benefit which was repudiated by the opposite parties and thereby the complainant filed a complaint claiming for the same along with costs. 3. After hearing both sides and on the basis of both sides materials, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as award amount of insurance policy and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties contended in this appeal that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint which is time barred ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Karthik Homes Rep. by Managing Partners Smt. M. Latha Vs. Mrs. Ma ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to handover the vacant possession alongwith compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and 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.31.3.2008 in CC.No.86/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.08.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person, 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 opposite party in COP No.9/2006, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (North), having suffered an adverse order dt.11.3.2010, challenges the same in this appeal. 2. The brief facts unavoidable for disposal of this case: The respondent/complainant had agreed to p...
Tag this Judgment!S.Balamurugan and anr. Vs. the Director of Medical and Rural Health Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1.The petitioners have approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 16th February 2006, vide which, the representations filed by the petitioners, for renewal of contract was declined. 2.The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, were appointed as 'Lab Technicians' on 24.08.2002, at the District DTP Dispensary, Madurai Corporation and Government Primary Health Centre, T.Kallupatty, respectively, on contractual basis. The contract was renewed on execution of fresh agreement for one year. In view of the fact, that services of the petitioners were not found to be satisfactory, their contract was not renewed any further. 3.The petitioners approached this court, by filing writ petition in W.P.No.3387 of 2004 [S.Balamurugan] and W.P.No.3388 of 2004 [Josuva Jebakumar], seeking regularization of their services. The writ petitions were dismissed, by observing that the petitioners were appointed only on contractual basis, on fix...
Tag this Judgment!K.Gopalram Vs. A.Muthumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1.The revision petitioner/husband has filed the above revision to set aside the order dated 22.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.96 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2009 on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur against his wife for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner has stated in his petition that the marriage was solemnized between the respondent and himself on 28.06.2007 at G.V.Thirumana Mahal, Madurai, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The marriage was arranged by the family members of both sides and others. After the marriage, strained relationship developed between them. Hence, the divorce petition was filed by the revision petitioner. 3.The respondent/wife has filed HMOP.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Karur for restittution of conjugal rights. While so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1.The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Trichirappalli, in answering the reference against the petitioner. 2.The petitioner was working as 'Conductor' with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., since 1985. The petitioner was charged with misappropriation of fund, on 9.6.2000 and was placed under suspension, on 16.06.2000. The domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, he was held guilty of the charge of misappropriation, and accordingly, 2nd show cause notice was issued against the proposed punishment. 3.Finding the explanation given by the petitioner to be not satisfactory, he was ordered to be dismissed from service. 4.The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal, which was referred to the learned Labour Court. The petition was contested wherein the stand of the Management was, that the petitioner was o...
Tag this Judgment!S.Thamiyon Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2011 to take action against the respondents 4 to 6 for excommunicating the petitioner and his family.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents.3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.4. The petitioner has given a complaint to the District Collector - first respondent, the Superintendent of Police - second respondent and the Inspector of Police - third respondent, stating that the respondents 4 to 6 have excommunicated him from the community and the village as well. Since no action has been taken, the writ petition has been filed.5. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that some initiative has been taken by the Inspector of Police - third respondent and that the matter has been am...
Tag this Judgment!K.Manickam Vs. Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 2nd November 2005, removing the petitioner from service. 2.The admitted facts leading to the filing of the case are that the petitioner while working as 'Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I', was on unauthorized leave for more than three years. 3.The stand of the petitioner was that he had met with an accident, therefore, was not medically fit to join duty. In-spite of the fact, that the petitioner was absent from duty, no departmental action was taken. 4.It was, on 22nd November 1990, the petitioner approached the District Collector (Development), for permission to join duty. Petitioner was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board, on 2.5.1991, gave a fitness certificate to the petitioner, certifying that he was fit to join duty. 5.Instead of accepting, the certificate of fitness, the District Collector, the appointing and punishing authority of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. Heard both sides. I find that the impugned appeal before the lower appellate authority has been decided with the following observation :- “The appellant having approached this forum seeking relief should have submitted the copies of invoices and a copy of the half yearly return to substantiate their claim which he failed to do before the Lower Adjudicating Authority during adjudication proceedings. In the absence of the documentary proof, I am inclined not to accept the contention of the appellant that they have availed the eligible credit on eligible document” 2. It is the contention of the ld. advocate that documents referred to by the lower appellate authority were indeed produced before the original authority. Ld. advocate states that if the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority, the appellant will be in a position to produce all the relevant documents to satisfy the authorities about the eligibility of the appellants to the credit. 3. Ld. SDR appearing...
Tag this Judgment!Pallipalayam Spinners Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. Heard ld. JCDR. None is present on behalf of the party despite notice and despite adjournment granted earlier. There is also no adjournment request on record. It appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. As such, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »