Chennai Court April 2014 Judgments
S. Ramu Vs. M/S.Hdfc Bank Limited, Shastri Nagar Branch, Rep. by Its B ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The complainant filed this complaint before this State Commission against the opposite parties praying for the direction to cease and desist from indulging in unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for his ordeal and many kinds of suffering caused by their deficiencies and unfair trade practices and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of privacy and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards wastage of time, nuisance, discomfort and distractions from important activities and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards sleep deprivation and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards adverse physical health impact and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and annoyance and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards being victimized by aggressive sales pressures, pestering, menace, insults and violation of basic right not to be disturbed and to pay costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 5.3.2014 and hearing the arguments on either side and perused the r...
Tag this Judgment!O.A. Varadadesigan Vs. M/S. Vayjayanthi and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum rejected the complaint as not maintainable. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CCSR.No.267/2013, dated 22.07.2013. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant, 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 appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was entertained in SR.No.267/2013, after hearing the maintainability of the complaint the District Forum rejected the complaint under Sec.12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. Aggrieved by the same the complainant filed this appeal contend...
Tag this Judgment!D. Kumar Vs. Viswanathan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.302/2009, dated 12.07.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant for the purpose of business reserved a ticket for a trip to Pondicherry on 4.6.2009 morning through the 1st opposite party and paid Rs.400/- to the 1st opposite party with a request to boarding at the 3rd opposite party travel office being an important boarding point mentioned in the application form. But the request was not...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavathi Natarajan Vs. the Claims Executive, Tata Aig Insurance Compa ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.157/2004, dated 29.01.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had travelled from Boston USA on 13.06.2002 by American EB Flight No.4798 and arrived at JFK Airport and from there she took Air India Flight No.A1-112 to Mumbai and reached Chennai on 02.07.2002. When she arrived at Chennai her baggage had not reached Chennai. She made a complaint to the authorities. Subsequently, the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai - Iv Vs. M/S. Invensys India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. They have not maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs meant for used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods. They paid 10% on the value of total price of exempted final product in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and collected the same from their customers. A show-cause notice dated 22.5.2007 was issued proposing the demand of an amount of Rs.12,54,998/- in the month of December 2004 under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of Rs.12,54,998/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :29. 04.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P. No.2313 of 2013 Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.901/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 04.09.2013 passed by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's grandson Selvam S/o Gnanamani, aged about 22 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's grandson Selvam S/o Gnanamani, aged about 22 years, the detenu herein at liberty. For P...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakumar Vs. State Rep.by Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date :29. 04.2014 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Dhanapalan and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.Chockalingam Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2012 Jayakumar S/o. Gunasekar, No.86, Ranuka Ammal 3rd Street, Vyasarpady, Chennai 39. ... Appellant/Accused .. Vs .. State rep. by The Inspector of Police V.5, Thirumangalam Police Station Chennai. [Crime No.319/2007]. ... Respondent/Complainant - - - - - Criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, made in S.C.No.297 of 2010, dated 11.07.2011. For Appellant :: Mr.S.Nambirajan For Respondent :: Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor .. .. .. J U D G E M E N T G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.The appellant, who is the sole accused, was tried by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.297 of 2010 for offences under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and by a judgment dated 11.07.2011 the trial Judge found the appellant guilty o...
Tag this Judgment!P.Rakesh Vs. Slo Industries Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.32425 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 P.Rakesh ... Petitioner vs 1.M/s. SLO Industries Ltd. represented by its Executive Director Mr. Rakesh Pratap Sharma No.403/D, Thiruvettiyur High Road Chennai 600 019. 2.M/s.Meghana Metallurgy Private Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Mr.Dipak Kumar Thyari Door No.700, VII Main Road HAL II Stage, Indira Nagar Bangalore 560 038. ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.192 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai and quash the same so far as this petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam For Respondents : Mr.J.Balagopal (R1) ORDER Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings in C.C.No.192 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Court IV, George Town, Chennai. Such is an action...
Tag this Judgment!Nokia India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Ct
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :29. 04-2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Writ Petition Nos. 9077, 9078, 9079, 9725, 9726 and 9727 of 2014 and M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 3, and 3 of 2014 Nokia India Private Limited No.A-1, Nokia Telecom SEZ SIPCOT Industrial Park Phase III, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram represented by its Authorised Signatory .. Petitioner in all the Mr. Varun Menon Writ Petitions Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner (CT) Office of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Enforcement (South) PAPJM Building, 2nd Floor Greems Road, Chennai 600 006 2. Joint Commissioner (Appeals) PAPJM Building, 2nd Floor Greems Road, Chennai 600 006 3. State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Secretariat, Fort St. George .. Respondents in all the Chennai 600 009 Writ Petitions WP No.9077 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in the impugned order in ...
Tag this Judgment!V.Karikalan Vs. Executive Engg. Tangedco
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.278 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 V.Karikalan ..Petitioner versus 1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO).K.K.Nagar, Electricity Distribution Division, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO).K.K.Nagar, Electricity Distribution Division, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to accept the payment of the petitioner electricity service connection No.276 026 234 without demanding the payment of other defaulters in the T.N.H.B.Shopping Complex, 100 feet road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026 and consequently direct them to permanently restore the electricity Service Connection No.276 026 234 of K.K.Nagar distribution situated in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »