Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
Vijay Roadlines and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Rep. by Its Chai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.24406 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the conditions 11(a) 11 (c) 11 (d) of A. General and 1 (a) and 1 (b) of E. Security deposit of tender terms and conditions in tender No.TNSO/OPS/POL/PT-3/2012-13 issued by the second respondent dated 14.8.2012 with due date 12.9.2012 and quash the same and thereby permitting the petitioners to participate in the said tender. Prayer in W.P.No.24219 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Tender No.TNSO/OPS/POL/PT-3/2012-13 from the Deputy General Manager (ops), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(MD), Tamil Nadu State Office, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600034, and quash the mandatory requirements laid down at Condition No.14 of the Technical Bid and di...
Tag this Judgment!P.Suresh Kumar and Another Vs. the Chairman, Central Board of Excise a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to issue a CHA license in terms of Regulation 9 of CHALR 2004 to the petitioner who had qualified the examinations conducted under the CHALR 1984.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had appeared in the Customs House Agent written examination and the oral examination, held under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. It had been declared that the petitioner had qualified in the examinations by the communication issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs. 3. It had been further stated that the grant of licence to the petitioner, as customs house agent is governed by the Customs House Agents, Licencing Regulations, 1984. The Regulations had been issued, originally, in th...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kasiramalingam Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the second respondent to show cause under what authority the second respondent holds the post of Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu and to oust him from the office of Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, notified in G.O.Ms.No.431/Law Officers/23rd May 2011 (No.1/PULO/11(a-1)/2011 on the ground that the second respondent has not been qualified for appointment of Advocate General, appointed in violation of Article 165(1) r/w 217(2)(b) with appended explanation (aa) and also under Article 165 r/w Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India.) K.N.BASHA, J. and N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. The writ petitioner, a practising Advocate, has come forward with this writ petition challenging the appointment of the second respondent herein as Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the second resp...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Chairman and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of District Forum in CMP No.514/2011 in CC.1020/2009 dt.30.04.2012. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 17.9.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, this commission made the following order. JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI J, PRESIDENT 1. The Revision petitioner is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant, based on some allegations, filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite parties. On receipt notice, the opposite parties filed their version, in which they contended that the complainant is not a consumer, and requested to consider this aspect as a preliminary issue. On noticing this, the complainant filed a petition before the District Forum, requesting the District Forum to declare him as a consumer. 3. The District Forum, after considering the matter on merit, passed an order, by dismissing the petition, which is impugned before us n...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Mahalingam Vs. the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and discomfort. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modifying the order of the District Forum dated 27.07.2010 in CC.10/2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.09.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant availed policy under Jeevan Plus Scheme (Table No.173) for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the period of 12 years commencing from 31.3.2006 and annual premium payable was Rs.60,000/-. The complainant had paid 3 year premium of Rs.1,80,000/- and...
Tag this Judgment!Deepa Narasimhan and Another Vs. Aditya Foundations (a Sampath Raj)
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
(The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- with 18% interest and to pay Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of construction work with costs. This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 17.09.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and, perusing the documents, this Commission made the following order) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The complaint filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The complainant praying relief for refund of Rs.5,50,000 with 18% interest for not constructing the flat as promised by the opposite party and to pay Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to deficiency in service and Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss due to increase in cost of construction and alternatively to give copy of CMDA plan approval...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Limited, Erode Vs. Minor Seetha and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.1.2007 made in MCOP.No.115/2004 by the learned Additional Special Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.1.2007 made in MCOP.No.115/2004 by the learned Additional Special Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 13.4.2003 at 2.00 p.m when the minor claimant was standing on the left side of the road in Balaguri, Krishnagiri Taluk, the mini door van bearing Reg.No.TN-33-P-0733 owned by the 2nd Respondent and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the minor claimant, causing serious injuries to her. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement and award found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van. The Tribunal also found that the mino...
Tag this Judgment!Minor M.Bhavadharani Rep. by Her Father and Natural Guardian, B.Manick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
(PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue call letter to the petitioner and to conduct the interview/counseling and grant admission in 1st year B.S.M.S. Siddha Medicine course, Academic year 2012-13 in Government Colleges.)The prayer in the writ petition is for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue call letter to the petitioner and to conduct the interview/counseling and grant admission in 1st year B.S.M.S. Siddha Medicine course, Academic year 2012-13 in Government Colleges.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a Backward Class community, completing her Plus Two examination, by securing 1027 out of 1200 marks. Respective marks in the relevant subjects are Physics 165/200, Chemistry 186/200 and Biology 189/200. Petitioner's average cut-off marks is 182.25 out of 200. She applied for admission to B.S.M.S Course through Application in A.R.No.106...
Tag this Judgment!K.Annamalai Vs. B.Arunkumar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 18.07.2000 made in MCOP.No.3240/1996 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 18.07.2000 made in MCOP.No.3240/1996 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist, however, since he had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the owner having allowed the rider to use the vehicle without having a valid licence, exonerated the Insurance Company from paying compensation and directed the owner/the 1st Respondent herein to pay compensation of Rs.1,67,961/- with interest at 12 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Appellant/claimant has challenged the said finding and the also quantum of compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Bhuvaneshwari Vs. Sri Ramaprabnnachary and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
(Revision against the order dated 25.07.2012 made in Transfer O.P.Sr.No.5693 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.) Petitioner had filed the un-unmbered Transfer O.P.on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking for a direction to transfer O.S.No.1794 of 2008 filed by her and the subsequent suit O.S.No.370 of 2009 filed by the first respondent for the same subject matter relating to the same property, pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur, to any other District Munsif Court so as to dispose of the suits jointly. The said un-unmbered Transfer O.P. was dealt with by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, at S.R. stage on the point of maintainability and rejected by an order dated 25.07.2012. The reason given by the Court below for rejecting the petition was that the said Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The said order is under challenge in this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »