Chennai Court August 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.
The Branch Manager Lic of India Tiruchengode Vs. Pachamuthu
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(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 the policy amount of Rs.6 lakhs with 12% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh 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.04.11.2009 in CC.No.58/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 8.08.2011. 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. This appeal aims to nullify the order of the District Forum in C.C.No.58/2008 on the file of District Forum, Namakkal, wherein a direction has been given to pay the sum assured under certain policies, with compensation, as per order dt.4.11.2009, by the aggrieved opposite party. 2....
AshwIn Parekh, Proprietor of Sri Sahajanand Cardio Care Vs. the Branch ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
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 lakhs as compensation towards defective service of the opposite party, to pay Rs.3 lakhs for the negligent service rendered by the opposite party and to pay Rs.4 lakhs towards mental agony with 24% interest per annum. 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.29.12.2008 in C.C.285/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.07.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.2. The complainant/appellant leveling negligence as well as deficiency against the opposite party bank, has filed the ca...
Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1.The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing to prohibiting the respondents from charging electricity tax at 5% on Maximum Demand Charges from the month of October 2007 onwards, and thus render justice. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, and is consumer of electricity. The petitioner obtained High Tension Power connection under tariff 1 as per the schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. 3. The High Tension Service number allotted to the petitioner is 244. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Act 4 of 1962, to levy tax on consumption of electricity energy on certain categories of consumption in the state of Madras. Under Section 3(b) of the said 'Act' electricity tariff was calculated at the rate mentioned therein in respect of High Tension supply. The tax was subsequently enhanced to 35%. This act continued to be in force till 30.04.1979. 4...
Selvarani Vs. the Joint Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent from granting permission to perform drama in Veerakudi Village, Virudhunagar District, in the event of Aadi Theertha festival of Arulmigu Murugaiyanar Thirukkovil. 2. In view of the order that is to be passed, notice to the respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with. 3. Heard Mrs.J.Anandha Valli, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The petitioner has made a representation on 09.08.2011 inter alia contending that the petitioner has been excommunicated by the members of the same community. The said representation has been received by the Inspector of Police and has been duly acknowledged. In the said representation, there are other grievances which related to the performance of certain festival by the...
R.Mohamed Rabik Vs. the General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor, in the Corporation. 2.The pleaded case of the petitioner is, that he passed SSLC examination, and belongs to Muslim community, which is classified as 'Backward Class'. The petitioner was also issued a community certificate, and in addition, holds bus conductor license, first aid certificate, thus is eligible for the post of conductor. 3.The petitioner is also registered with the local employment exchange. 4.The petitioner was called for interview on 10th July 2007, on being sponsored by the employment exchange. 5.The case of the petitioner, is that the age prescribed for 'Backward Community' is 40 years, therefore, he was eligible for consideration for that post. The petitioner successfully completed the practical test. That thereafter, he did not receive appointment letter. 6.The petitioner has not challenged the selec...
Tmt. S. Pappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, to challenge the appointment of fifth respondent, as Headmaster in Sivanthi Vinayagar Primary School, Mamsapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 2. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C., in March 1984, and Higher Secondary in April 1986. The petitioner also holds Diploma in Teacher Education in March 1988, and thereafter, joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in Sivanthi Vinayagar Primary School on 20.04.1990. 3. The Post of Headmaster of Elementary School fell vacant on 01.06.1998, on retirement of the incumbent. At that time, there were only two Secondary Grade Teachers, fulfilling the qualification of appointment, to the post of Headmaster of Elementary School, viz., Baby alias Umayal Parvathi and the petitioner. 4. The Management, by ignoring both the qualified teachers, working in the school, appointed the fifth respondent, as Headmaster on 01.06.1998. 5. It is pertinent to note here, that the fifth respondent is the son of the Secre...
G.Vincent Vs. the Principal Accountant General (a and E), Anna Salai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order, dated 23.06.2000, which is merely a letter, addressed by the Accounts Officer to the Joint Director of Health Services, for taking action, for recovery of amount, drawn in excess, by the petitioner. 2.The copy of the letter has also been forwarded to the petitioner. 3.It is not disputed that the Accounts Officer has no jurisdiction to order the recovery. It is for this reason that the request has been made to the Joint Director of Health Service. 4.The request itself is prima facie not sustainable, as it could not be made to an individual, in letter form. It was required to be addressed to the competent authority, having jurisdiction, under law to order recovery from the petitioner. 5.It is only the competent authority, who can take steps to pass orders, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Merely because, the request has been forwarded to the petitioner to deposit the amount, it does not get any legal force, whic...
S. Thirumurthi Secretary the Periyanaickenpalayam Housing Society Vs. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, 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.12.08.2009 in CC.No.77/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 18.07.2011. 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 case of the complainant: The complainants husband Srinivasan, being the member of the opposite party society, obtained a loan of Rs.4 lakhs, for the construction ofa house, which was disbursed on various dates. The amount including interest viz. Rs.6211.66/- per month, should be p...
A. Chandra Babu Naidu Vs. the General Officer Commanding-in-chief
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant/appellant, who had faced a charge under Section 64(c) of the Army Act and received a punishment of dismissal at the hands of the Summary Court Martial vide Order No.22013/P/621/DV-4, dated 28th October 2010, is standing before us challenging the same. 2. On the basis of the summary of evidence let in against the applicant/appellant, the Summary Court Martial was ordered by the competent authority. Before the Summary Court Martial, P.W.1 to 12 were examined and Exhibit-1 to 8 were marked. 3. P.W.1 JC-665314M Naib Subedar/Clerk R.K.Singh, who was examined as P.W.9 in the Summary of Evidence, has deposed about the punishment of 7 days pay fine awarded to the accused on 30th October 2008 under Exhibit-1 and that the same was set aside on 22nd February 2009 by the General Officer Commanding, 28 Infantry Division, under Exhibit-2 and that except the said punishment, the accused was not awarded any other punishment during hi...
Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. the Special Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, in assessing the tax under Urban Land Tax Act, has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned orders. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1986. The petitioner bank owns land bearing S.No.334/1, to the extent of two grounds and 427 sq.fts, in S.No.223/3 measuring 18 grounds and 2012 sq.fts in Thallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk. The land of the petitioner falls within the purview of the Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. 3. On 01.07.1971, the lands owned by the petitioner was assessed at Rs.8,300/-(Rupees Eight thousand and three hundred only) per ground w.e.f fasli year 1385, and accordingly tax was taxed at Rs.2,111/-(Rupees Two thousand one hundred and eleven only). The petitioner was served with a demand notice on 17.01.2004. The petitioner filed a statutory...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »