Chennai Madurai Court November 2016 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.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Represented by its Manager, C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.496 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pattukottai. Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.497 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pattukottai.) Common Judgment: 1. It is a case of an injury caused on account of an accident occurred on 03.07.2005 around 06.00a.m. near Thanjavur - Pattukottai road. The injured claimants filed applications seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pattukkottai in M.C.O.P.Nos.496 and 497 of 2005 and the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs.9,500/- and Rs.89,200/- respectively as total compensation. 2. Challenging the same, th...
T. Murugan Vs. Karuppuchamy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree of the lower appellate Court dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.124 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 27.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.) 1. One of the legal representatives of the defendant, who is the fourth appellant before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, for declaration that the suit second schedule properties belong to the plaintiffs and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The su...
A. Raja Vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare, the reservation, made in respect of the petitioner land in R.S.No.120/1C1 situated at Vandiyur I Bit Village, Vandiyur, Madurai under the Vandiyur Detail Development Plan No.4 to have lapsed by operation of section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (TN Act 35 of 1974) in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner Aruppukottai Municipality vs. Kamakshi Shelty reported in 2011(8) MLJ 437.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Declaration that the reservation, made in respect of the petitioner land in R.S.No.120/1C1 situated at Vandiyur I Bit Village, Vandiyur, Madurai under the Vandiyur Detail Development Plan No.4 has lapsed by operation of section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (TN Act 35 of 1974) in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner Aruppukottai Municipality vs. Kamakshi Shelty report...
G. Krishnaveni Vs. A. Arumugam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.67 of 2010 in un.Reg. A.S.No..... of 2010, dated 14.6.2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.67 of 2010 in un.Reg. A.S.No.....of 2010, dated 14.06.2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2004 before Sub-Court, Thoothukudi for the relief of specific performance and for other reliefs and after contest, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner took steps for preferring an appeal suit. Since the petitioner was bed-ridden and the Petitioner being a lady, aged about 40 years, was suffering from uterous trouble and continuously taking Ayurvedic treatment at Kerala, there had occurred a delay of 527 days in filing ...
Murugesan (Died) and Others Vs. Murugesan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 19.02.2016 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2013 made in O.S.No.82 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram District. 1. The second defendant and the legal representatives of the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2000 for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to any right in respect of the suit properties, which belong to the plaintiff's family and for recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, are as follows: 3.1. The suit properties originally belong to the plaintiffs ancestor, by name, ...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagercoil Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2004, dated 19.10.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Special Court, Pudukkottai.) 1. It is a case of an injury caused in the accident occurred on 19.09.2002 around 08.00p.m. near Keeramangalam. The injured claimant filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2004 and the Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted a sum of Rs.45,000/- as total compensation. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the driver who was driving the vehicle, which met with the accident, was not in a possession of valid driving licence and the same is in violation of policy conditions and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. In other words, the Ins...
Pandiaraja Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment, dated 25.01.2016, made in S.C.No.384 of 2014, on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and allow the above criminal appeal.) Judgment: M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No:384/14 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC. By Judgment dated 25.01.16, the Trial Court found guilty, convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The 1st accused was found not guilty of other offences under sections 294(b), 341 and acquitted u/s.235(i) Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief...
Saravanan and Others Vs. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiru ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.03.2015, made in S.C.No.45 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD)No.93 of 2015 are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.54 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli District. There was yet another accused by name, Sudha, who was arrayed as Accused No.5 in the case. The trial court framed as many as five charges against all the five accused, as detailed below: Accused Nos.Charge U/s.Accused Nos.1and 2U/s.120-B IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.364 IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.302 IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.201 IPCAccused No.5U/s.201 IPCAfter trial, the trial court, by judgment dated 30.03.2015, convicted the appellants/accused 1 to 4 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fi...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Tiruchengode, Namakkal District V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2005, dated 31.08.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur.) 1. It is a case of death caused in the accident took place on 11.06.2004 around 05.45p.m., 2km east to Kilakku Mettu Puthur of Jegathabai road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2005. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- as compensation. 2. Challenging the same, the appellant - New India Assurance Company Ltd., preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and further the driver of the vehicle, which met with the accident covered under the insurance policy of the appellant Insurance Company, had not commi...
Mohamed Abdul Kather Vs. The Proprietor, Amala Gas Centre and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the District Consumer Forum, Dindigul to dispose of C.C.No.46 of 2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 1. The petitioner has filed the present C.R.P under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a limited prayer to dispose of C.C.No.46 of 2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid C.C.No.46 of 2012 has been filed in the year 2012 and the said case is still pending before the District Consumer Forum, Dindigul, without any progress. The Petitioner being a senior citizen, aged 65 years, is facing enquiry for the past four years. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present C.R.P to dispose of the above C.R.P within a reasonable time, fixed by this Court. 3. Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 65 years, in the interest of justice...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »