Chennai Court June 2012 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.
E.Dhasaradhan Vs. B.Killi Valavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 08.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.2247 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai.JUDGMENT1. The appellant/claimant seeks enhancement of compensation amount.2. On 05.03.2001, in a road accident, the appellant had sustained multiple injuries. The Tribunal awarded him Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for the rest of the items, thus, totally, awarded him Rs.20,000/-.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though evidence as to the disability was produced, it was brushed aside and mixed all under one head and awarded Rs.5,000/-. This is not correct.4. On the other hand, Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that PW3 did not give him treatment, the disability certificate was given after five years of the accident. In the circ...
M.Ramanan and anr. Vs. F.Christy, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2006 made in MCOP No.1664 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Coimbatore.P.DEVADASS, J.1. The husband and son of the deceased in a road accident are the appellants.2. On 06.07.2005, at about 10 p.m., in Kovundampalayam, on the Coimbatore-Mettupalayam Road, from south to north, one Poompavai had driven her scooter. At that time, from the opposite side, the lorry belonging to the second respondent, insured with the 3rd respondent, came driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent. The lorry hit against the scooter. In this, the scooteriest died. 3. In MCOP.No.1664 of 2005, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(First Additional District Judge), Coimbatore, the husband and son of the deceased have claimed compensation. The Tribunal taking into account her age, and her income, applying the multiplier 17, towards loss o...
Gnanammal and ors. Vs. Pappathi Alias Arockiamary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Second Appeals filed under Section 100 CPC as against the judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2005, passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in A.S. Nos.134 of 2005 and 137 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2005, of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, in O.S. Nos.664 of 2001 and 1400 of 2004.T.Raja, J.COMMON JUDGMENT1. The present Second Appeals have been filed by Gnanammal and her legal heirs, questioning the correctness of the Judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2005, passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in A.S. Nos.134 of 2005 and 137 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2005, of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, in O.S. Nos.664 of 2001 and 1400 of 2004.2. Gnanammal had filed Original Suit No.664 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. A widow, struggling with her children under penurious circumstances for survival, she settled down in I...
V.Muthukalai. Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the RDO (Revenue Divisional Officer) Madurai - Madurai District in order No.A/9142/97 dt 24.1.2000 and the Appeal order of the District Revenue Officer Madurai, Madurai District in order No.25435/2000/G3/ dt 5.5.2000 and confirming order of the Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Revenue Admiistration Chepauk Chennai 5 in proceedings No.Ser V(3) 78910/2000 dt 30.3.2001 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the attendant service and monetary benefits and consequential benefitsO R D E R1. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Thuvariman Village, Madurai South Taluk. The petitioner worked as VAO in Thattanur, Vadivelkarai Vilacher Ananjiur etc. In Madurai North & South Taluk and Vadipatty Tal...
T.M.Bhoopathy. Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 02.09.2004, passed by the IIIrd Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2003 passed in O.S.No.2248 of 1996, by the Vth Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.J U D G M E N T1. The plaintiff is the lessee of the suit property. The defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, had leased out the property to the plaintiff's father-Murugesa Naicker in the year 1936. Since then, it is claimed that, both the plaintiff and his father has been paying the kist receipts to the competent authorities. But, subsequently, when the temple authorities with malafide intention refused to receive the lease amount, the plaintiff, by apprehending some unlawful action from the hands of the defendant, filed a suit in O.S.No.2248 of 1996 before the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employees, servants, workmen ...
Abdul Sattar, and anr. Vs. V.Balachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order and decree dated 17.10.2011 passed in E.A.No.250 of 2011 in E.P.No.92 of 2010 in O.S.No.176 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi granting the petitioner five months' time as against 18 months claimed by the petitioners.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.10.2011 passed in E.A.No.250 of 2011 in E.P.No.92 of 2010 in O.S.No.176 of 1994 by the learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both.3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:This revision is focussed as against the order and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.250 of 2011, which was one for the following relief:"To give the petitioners 18 months time from the date of the order to vacate and hand over the suit property after removing the super structure to the plaintiff decree holder."4. The lower Court granted five mont...
G.Anandhi. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to hold an enquiry to Mr.Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police and Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police station, Dharmapuri district on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondents and higherups dated .09.2011 in accordance with law.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to hold enquiry against Mr.Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police, and Mr.Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police station, Dharmapuri district in view of the representation submitted by the petitioner.2 In support of the writ petition, it is pleaded as under:"1 I submit that I am a house wife and is hailing from Kuruvar S.C.Communit...
R.Shanmugam Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from Door No.2/417E and 2/417F, Old S.No.375/1, New.S.No.59/2 at Kilinjada, Hulical Town Panchayat, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgris District.O R D E R1. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from Door No.2/417E and 2/417F, Old S.No.375/1, New.S.No.59/2 at Kilinjada, Hulical Town Panchayat, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgris District.2. According to the petitioner, he is residing in S.No.2/417E and 2/417F at Kilinjada, Hulical Town Panchayat, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgris District. He had put up, houses measuring 200 sq.ft and 100 sq.ft. He has also grown orange, mango and other fruit bearing trees. He has been issued B-Memos by the revenue department.3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without adhering to Sections 6 & 7 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, the revenue ...
Bhuvanendran. Vs. the Sub-registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer: 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 on the file of the first respondent in its proceedings No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to receive and register the document with respect to property in S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. Also, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction by this Court to the first respondent/Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur to receive and register the document in regard to pro...
R.Radha Vs. Gurusamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, in E.A.No.9 of 2011 in E.P.No.26 of 2002 in O.S.No.64 of 1997.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, in E.A.No.9 of 2011 in E.P.No.26 of 2002 in O.S.No.64 of 1997, this revision petition has been filed.2. The facts as stood un-curtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus:O.S.No.64 of 1007 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs herein seeking partition. After contest, the preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, final decree also was passed. E.P.No.26 of 2002 was filed for executing the final decree. At that stage, E.A.No.9 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioner herein, who happened to be the 39th defendant in the suit, alleging that the decree passed by the trial Court was a nullity, because pendente lite D5 and D7 died, but their L.Rs. were not impleaded....