Chennai Court August 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.
A. Ramakrishnan Vs. G. Chandramohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Civil revision petition filed against the judgement and decree dated 10.10.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore, in R.C.A.No.46 of 2007 confirming the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.) ORDER 1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree 10.10.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore, in R.C.A.No.46 of 2007 confirming the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP.No.183 of 2004, invoking Sections 10(2)(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking eviction on the grounds of 'wilful default' and for 'perso...
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kancheepuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.833 of 2002 dated 07.3.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Kancheepuram.) In this appeal, the Insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company, mainly disputes the negligence question, consequently, its liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants under the award of the Tribunal. 2. It is not in dispute that the road accident had taken place on 14.4.2002. It is also not in dispute that andavan died of injuries sustained in the road accident. Claimants 1 to 5, who are respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal are dependents of the deceased. 3. The Yamaha motor bike TN 21 W 2046 is involved in this accident belongs to 7th respondent. At the time of accident, there is policy coverage for this vehicle with the appellant. Totally, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.4,92,000/-. 4. According...
Nagammal and Others Vs. Kalyana Sundaram Servai 2. M/S. New India Assu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2007 passed in MCOP No.1816 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai.) JUDGMENT 1. The claim made in respect of the death of the deceased to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- was decreed for a sum of Rs.3,63,296/-. Dissatisfied with the award, the legal representatives of the deceased-Veeramani has filed the appeal. 2. The deceased-Veeramani, aged 49 years, employed as Head Constable and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month, died in an accident that took place on 23.02.2005. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as per the following details:- 1Loss of dependencyRs. 4,32,120/- (The monthly income fixed as Rs.4,155.00 - 1/3rd deducted - Multiplier of 13 adopted)2Loss of love and affectionRs. 20,000/-3Funeral expensesRs. 2,000/-Total....Rs. 4,54,120/-Out of the above amount of Rs.4,54,120/-, the Tribunal has deducted ...
P. Marimuthu Vs. the District Collector, Salem and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring the nomination of the respondents 6 to 9 as President, Vice-President, Joint Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Parents-Teachers Association for the Government High School, Chinnapillaiyur, Omalur Taluk, Salem District as unconstitutional and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein to conduct the election in accordance with law to elect the new office bearers of the Parents-Teachers Association for the Government High School, Chinnapillaiyar, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, had submitted that the 5th respondent would conduct the elections for the various posts in the Paren...
P. Senthamil Prakasam and Others Vs. the Secretary to Government, Most ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.09.2011, made in M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2011.) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI,J) 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.09.2011, made in M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2011, vacating the interim stay granted on 24.06.2011 in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2011. 2. The Writ Appeal is listed today under the caption "for withdrawal", based on the letter, dated 01.08.2012, addressed to the Registry by the learned counsel for the Appellants. When the Writ Appeal was taken-up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that they have instructions to withdraw the Writ Appeal. Learned counsel also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. In view of the submission and the endorsement made, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ...
A. Anitha Viji Vs. the Secretary School Education Department and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in anyone of the vacancies in the respondents' department at the earliest in the light of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 30.8.2010 and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 12.7.2011.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that, late N.A.Anthony, the father of the petitioner, had been employed, as a Pre -Vocational Instructor (Weaving Teacher), at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Sitharevu. She had a blemishless record of service, for more than 30 years. He had died, on 9.5.1994, while in service. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner is the only daughter in the family, as none of the family members were in employment. She had applied befor...
K.M. Mohan Vs. the Collector Collectorate, Vellore District and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to allot Shop Nos.1 and 2 together at Dharapadavedu- Chittoor Bus Stand Vellore to the petitioner on priority basis following the Resolution No.163 dated 31.12.2007 passed by the then Vellore Municipality for Government Rate.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the first and the second respondents. No appearance on behalf of the third respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to allot shop Nos.1 and 2, at Dharapadavedu-Chittoor bus stand, Vellore, to the petitioner, on priority basis, pursuant to the Resolution No.163, dated 31.12.2007, passed by the then Vellore Municipality, at the rate fixed by the Government. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been running a Hotel, in the nam...
Anai Gounder Vs. Maria Prakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.08.2009 made in I.A.No.138 of 2008 in O.S.No.68 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur.) ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Court below made in I.A.No.138 of 2008 in O.S.No. 68 of 2006 dated 7.8.2009, wherein and whereby the application filed by the respondent herein seeking for condonation of delay of 316 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed on 22.1.2007 is allowed. 2. The petitioner herein as the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 68 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur against the respondent herein as the defendant seeking for specific performance of an agreement and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The suit was decreed exparte on 22.1.2007. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ...
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Vs. Elavarasi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 29.12.2004 mad in MCOP No.179 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Session (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.) JUDGMENT When the hired vehicle is in absolute control of the requisitioning authority and when the driver and other employees work under the direction and control of requisitioning authority and when the registered owner of the vehicle has no control over the use of vehicle, whether vicarious lability in respect of the accident would fall upon the registered owner or upon the requisitioning authority is the issue to be decided. 2. The hirer of the vehicle as the requisitioning authority, who was having control of the vehicle, and using it for election purpose was responsible for the death of a constable who was on election duty. The tribunal directed the requisitioning authority that is Superintendent of Police to pay the com...
Palanisamy Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.08.2010 and the consequential order dated 06.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.102 of 2010 in unnumbered A.S.No....of 2010 by the Hon'ble District Judge, Villupuram.) 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.08.2010 and the consequential order dated 06.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.102 of 2010 in unnumbered A.S.No....of 2010 by the Hon'ble District Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell as against the revision petitioner herein. The suit was decreed, as against which the revision petitioner filed the A.S. with a delay of 142 days. After hearing both sides, the said application was ordered subject to the condition that cost of Rs.26,832/- f...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »