Chennai Madurai Court December 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.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Nagerkovil, Nager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.01.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagerkovil.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award of Rs.2,42,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation for the death of Muneera Bagam aged about 14 years in the accident occurred on 16.02.2001 when she was travelling in a Auto which was hit by a Tempo driven in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. Therefore, the claim petition is filed. 2. On contest, the Tribunal found that the driver of the Tempo alone was responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.2,42,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred only). The said award is being challenged before this Court by the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing fo...
N. Hariharan Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organizat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension to till the completion of six months' period under suspension at the rate of 50% last pay and thereafter to issue at the rate of 75% last pay along with dearness allowance, other permitted allowances and monetary benefits according to the 53(i)(a) (1) of Fundamental Rules.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the completion of six months' period under suspension at the rate of 50% and thereafter, to issue at the rate of 75% last drawn pay along with dearness allowance, other permitted allowances and monetary benefits, according to the provisions of 53(i)(a) (1) of Fundamental Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under su...
G. Sakthi Ayyanar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chie ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to receive the Petitioner's RTI Applications dated 25.3.2015 and 7.4.2015 and provide information in accordance with RTI Act and further to direct the first respondent to ensure that all Public Information Officers of the Tamil Nadu State Government would receive all RTI Applications in future and enforce the RTI Act properly.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
A. Mariya Anandhamary @ Anandhi Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathap ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for new ration card dated 8.12.2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to give new ration card to our family.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for issuance of a new ration card. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppanlearned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. It is seen that the Petitioner has made such a request before the respondents through her application, dated 17.2.2014 followed by another representation, dated 8.12.2016. The grievance of the Petitioner is that till date the authorities have not considered her request. 5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner, I only direct...
S.P. Ramasamy Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Ou.Mu.43412-2010, dated 26.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to reconsider his uncommunicated order in Mu.Mu-98407-03, dated 24.02.2005 after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner is the owner of a Revolver under license dated 06.09.1987 and it was renewed periodically. According to the petitioner, his business involves may rivals and he is always under threat and he is in need of protection. He has neither involved in any abuse of Revolver nor he has been charged for criminal proceedings. While that being so, the first respondent on 26.07.2010 has cancelled his license without any notice to him. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the second resp...
Ramesh Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to cancel the patta on the name of the 6th respondent and give the patta with regard to the land in Arumalaikottai village R.S.No.952/2 (1.56.0 hectares) to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2010.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent by the concerned Revenue Official, namely, the third respondent. 2. Needless to say that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy as provided under the Patta Pass Book Act before the competent authority, if he has any grievance against the grant of patta in favour of the fifth respondent. Without resorting to such course of action, filing of the present writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School E ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the interim order dated 15.12.2015, passed in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD).No.22514 of 2015, by a learned Single Judge of this Court.) R. Subbiah, J. 1. These Appeals have been filed as against the common order, dated 15.12.2015, made in M.P.(MD).Nos.2, 2, 2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD).Nos.22514 to 22519 of 2015, whereby and whereunder this Court directed the 4th appellant herein to give temporary approval to the first respondent in all the appeals, who were appointed as Post Graduate Assistants and B.T. Assistant, as the case may be. 2. In the year 2011, the first respondents in W.A.(MD).Nos.183, 184, 185, 186 and 188 of 2015 were appointed as P.G. Assistants and the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.187 of 2015 was appointed as B.T. Assistant by the Correspondent of the second respondent school, whose Correspondent-ship was approved by the fourth respondent - the District Educational Officer on 10.02.201...
Fine Fabrics, Rep., by its Partner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ARC ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to accept the export obligation and discharge certificate (EODC) dated 11.4.2014 issued by the joint director General of Foreign Trade and not to enforce the Bank Guarantee no. 253/2014 (BG.NO:BO51BGP140520001) for a sum of Rs.6 50 000/- dated 21.2.2014 issued by the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to accept the export obligation and discharge certificate (EODC) dated 11.4.2014 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and not to enforce the Bank Guarantee No. 253/2014 (BG.NO:BO51BGP140520001) for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- dated 21.2.2014 issued by the Karur Vysya Bank Limited. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. It is seen that the the petitioner seeks fo...
E. Manickam and Others Vs. S. Jayaraman, The Chief Engineer (AE), Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.7749 of 2008 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of this Court.) K. Ravichandrabaabu,J. 1. It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors that the writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.273 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.7749 of 2008, wherein notice has been ordered by the Division Bench. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this Contempt Petition is closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to revive if an occasion so arises in future. No costs....
V. Arumugam and Others Vs. S. Jayaraman, The Chief Engineer (AE), Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.7742 of 2008 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of this Court.) K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors that the writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.266 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.7742 of 2008, wherein notice has been ordered by the Division Bench. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this Contempt Petition is closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to revive if an occasion so arises in future. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »