Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
Sri Sastha Constructions Rep. by Its Proprietor V. Sreekrishnan Vs. S. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(The 1st Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to handover the flat alongwith approved plan, to pay Rs.210000/- towards advance amount, alongwith compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.07.2010 in CC.No.48/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 18.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainant approached the District Forum, alleging negligence and deficiency, against the opposite parties /builders, claiming the following reliefs: 1. To direct the opposite parties to handover the flat alongwith approved ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and A ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
(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 Rs.75,000/- with 15% interest towards medical expenses, to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, sufferings, loss of income with costs. 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.17.03.2011 in C.C.50/2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.01.2012, 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 order under challenge is one passed by the District Forum, Srivilliputhur in C.C.50/2010, under which, certain directions were given against the first and second opposite parties. 2. The respondent/complainant had taken Family Health Optima Insurance...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mariammal Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary, Ministry of Def ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
ORDER(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)1. The widow of Late Nb Sub R.Arunagiri has come forward with this application for second family pension (Army family pension) challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide No.JC-51981/Pen (f/67), dated 17.04.2009.2. According to the applicant, her late husband viz., Nb Sub R.Arunagiri, JC 51981, was employed in the Army between 1974 and 1994. After his discharge from the Army he was re-employed in Canara Bank and he died in harness on 19.01.1999. After the death of her husband, she was drawing Family Pension from Canara Bank as per the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. On 27.07.2001, a notification was issued by the DP and PW Office (Annexure -1) whereby the widow or next of kin (NOK) is entitled to receive both civil as well as Army family pension. The said order was also circulated to all Sainik Welfare Department Offices only on 03.04.2006 (Annexure -2). The applicant came to know about the notification only in 20...
Tag this Judgment!U.B. Xpress (South) P Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Per D.N. Panda, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order of adjudication dt. 31.7.2009 raising service tax demand of Rs.59,20,783/- followed by penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and interest as leviable on the tax demand under law, the appellant came in appeal challenging that when the appellant provided courier service to the main courier namely professional couriers and service tax having been paid by the latter, there shall not be levy on the appellant. Further grievance of the appellant is that when the main courier pays service tax, present appellant can never be said to have provided business support service prior to 23.8.2007. Ld. Adjudicating authority committed an error in failing to consider the decision of the larger bench in the case of Vijay Sharma and Co. and 2 Others Vs CCE Chandigarh as reported in 2010-TIOL-1215-CESTAT-DEL.-LB. Inviting attention to para-9 of the reported decision, it was the submission of ld. Coun...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager Vst Service Station (Vellore) Gandhi Nagar Vs. Dr. M.N. Ba ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to refund the excess amount collected with 24% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.70000/- and Rs.20000/- towards expenses incurred alongwith 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.05.04.2010 in CC.No.33/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 09.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in CC.No.33/2005, on the file of District Forum, Vellore, dissatisfied with the order, has come before us, challenging the same, as appellant. 2. The complainant / respondent, entrusted his Mahindra Jeep, bearing Re...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited Sales and Site Office Rep. by Premanand, A ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1 lakh with 18% interest, alongwith compensation of RS.1,50,000/- and cost of Rs.50000/-. 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.30.9.2010 in CC.No.109/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 06.01.2012. 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:) THIRU M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1.The opposite parties are the appellants. 2.The complainant / respondent, coming to know the proposed construction of apartments, by the opposite parties, had booked a flat for Rs.11,56,322/-, by paying a token advance of RS.1 lakh, on 5.10.2008, and pursuant to the same, a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Manager Canara Bank Dhalavoipupram Vs. V. Chandra and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to pay Rs.14,910/-. 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.27.9.2010 in CC.No.25/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 18.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in CC No.25/2010, on the file of District Forum, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ 1st complainant, had a Current Account, with the opposite party bank, bearing Account No.766, commencing from 8.12.2005, which was operated periodically. On 16.11.2005, she had deposited a sum of RS.10000/-, totaling the balance Rs.11,02...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Chelladurai, Prop. Raja Enterprises Vs. U. Muthukrishnan and Ot ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the third opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.10.75, further claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony, to pay Rs.25,000/- for selling the diesel more than the MRP and to pay Rs.10,000/- for Unfair Trade Practice. 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.29.04.2010 in C.C.11/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.01.2012, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The third opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants have filed this case for the refund of Rs.10.75 paise by the third opposite party, alleging that they have collected excess amount for the diesel ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahamath Nisha Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
This habeas corpus petition is filed by the wife of the detenu by name Ahamed Ibrahim Abdul Jaleel, who is detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act, 1974') and confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, pursuant to the order of detention dated 4.11.2010, which was executed on 22.8.2011. 2. The detention order was passed on the ground that the detenu indulged in smuggling of gold when he came from Columbo by Jet Lite Flight No.S2 542, which arrived at the Anna International Airport, Chennai on 10.7.2010. The Immigration Authoriites of the Airport intercepted the detenu on the ground that he brought 699 grams of gold worth Rs.12,83,713/-. The detenu was arrested on 10.7.2010 at 13.00 hours for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, C...
Tag this Judgment!S. Naganathan Vs. the Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
The Appellant as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to reimburse the sum of Rs.35,973.42/- spent by him towards hospitalization charges, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.10000/-. 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.23.11.2010 in CC.No.147/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant having failed before the District Forum, in claiming medical reimbursement, based upon mediclaim policy, has come before this commission, as appellant. 2. The complainant /appellant, disclosing his pre-existing disease of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »