Chennai Court August 2013 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.
1.A.R.Saradha Devi Vs. 1.R.Jeyarani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22. 08/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH C.M.A.(MD)No.62 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 1.A.R.Saradha Devi 2.The United India Insurance Co Ltd., 254, GoodsSheds Street, Madurai - 625 001 .. Appellants / Respondents 1&2 in W.C Vs. 1.R.Jeyarani 2.Minor.R.Arun Prasad 3.Minor R.Priya Dharshini .. Respondents / Petitioners in W.C. (Minors represented by 1st Respondent herein) PRAYER This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmens Compensation Act, against the Award dated 12.02.2001 made in W.C.No.301/1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner for Labour) at Madurai. !For Appellants ... Mr.A.Joseph Jawahar ^For Respondents ... No Appearance :JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are respondents 1 and 2 in W.C. proceedings, against the Award dated 12.02.2001 made in W.C.No.301 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner f...
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Gunasekaran
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
(This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 27.06.2013 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant's counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:) J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur in C.C.24/2009, dated 6-4-2010, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs.36,574/- from the 1st opposite party on 23-2-2007 agreeing to repay the loan in 24 months instalments of Rs.1894/- for which he issued 24 cheques to the 1st opposite party. However, 3 cheques were returned dishonoured since there was no sufficient funds in his account and the cheques were sent to the complainant through one Velmurugan staff of the 1st opposite party and he collected the amounts from the complainant and returned the 3 dishonoured cheques to him. He paid the remaining installments but the 1st opposite party...
R.Manimaran Vs. Managing Director of Metropolitan Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.08.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.2545 of 2010 R.Manimaran .Petitioner versus Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent relating to the order Proceedings No.8994/Sa.Pi./O.NG)/15/Ma.Po.Ka/2007 dated 25.8.2009 and to quash it and consequently directing the Respondent to provide suitable alternative employment under Sec.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995, within a time limit. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manohar For Respondent : Mr.G.Munirathinam ORDER The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the Respondent pertaining to ...
Saree Sansar Vs. Nandakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :20. 08-2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN C.R.P (PD).No.2347 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 1. M/s. Saree Sansar Partnership firm rep. by its Partner Shree Suresh Vaswani 2. Shree Suresh Vaswani 3. Padma Vaswani 4. Neetu P.Vaswani 5. Manju 6. Inderchand ............ Petitioners vs. Nandakumar .......... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to strike off the RCOP No.223 of 2009 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan For Respondent : Ms.P.T.Asha for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates ORDER Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to strike off R.C.O.P.No.223 of 2009 pending on the file of the Rent Controller / District Mu...
K.Veerabathiran Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :20. 08.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition No.22799 of 2013 K.Veerabathiran .. Petitioner Vs.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of School Education Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai 9 2. The Director of Elementary Education D.P.I.Campus College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 6 3. The District Elementary Education Officer Thoothukudi District Thoothukudi 4. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Thoothukudi Rural Thoothukudi District .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the services rendered by the petitioner in the place of Higher Grade from 5.11.1969 to 31.121970 as Secondary Grade Teacher and award all attendant benefits in light of the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. No.38449 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For...
P.Arumugam Vs. M.Shunmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20. 08/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM SA(MD)No.171 of 2010 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2010 P.Arumugam .. Appellant/Appellant/Defendant Vs M.Shunmugam Pillai .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Second Appeal filed under section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 02.11.2009 passed in Appeal Suit No.16 of 2008 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi confirming the Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2007 passed in Original Suit No.301 of 2003 by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. !For Appellant ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Vijayakumar :JUDGMENT Challenge in this Second Appeal is to the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.301 of 2003 by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi and in Appeal Suit No.16 of 2008 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi.2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.301 of 2003 on the file of ...
J.Gnanakumar Vs. Joy Kanmani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.4073 of 2009 and Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.5910 and 5942 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1 of 2009 & 1 of 2010 J.Gnanakumar : Petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4073/2009 1.V.P.Rajan 2.Rita Ernest 3.Sivamayam 4.Gnanamani Susila : Petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5910/2009 Muthulakshmi : Petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5942/2009 versus Joy Kanmani : Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps. Prayer (in all Crl.O.Ps) Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.104 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and to quash the same. !For Petitioners (in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.4073 and 5910/2009 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar in Crl.O.P.No.5942/2009 for Mr.T.J.Ebenezercharles ^For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar (all Crl.O.Ps) :COMMON ORDER Seeking the relief of quashing the entire cr...
Baby Vignesh, Represented by Mother and Natural Guardian Vs. Aditya Ho ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
(This case coming up before us for final hearing on 23.04.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:) J. Jayaram, Judicial Member The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had a 4 months old child; and on 9-8-2008 the child was suffering from cold and fever and she took the child to the clinic of one Dr. Kalaivani on 10-8-2008; who advised her to take the child to Aditya Hospital and also spoke to Dr. Kavitha, the 2nd opposite party and requested her to come to her clinic and both of them examined the child and advised her to admit the child in Aditya Hospital for treatment for cold and fever. The child was admitted in Aditya Hospital where the 2nd opposite party was working. There saline water was given through IV Line and thereafter on 12-8-2008 the 2nd opposite party was not available in the hospital and two duty doctors and one nurse came together and insisted that IV Line should...
P. Dhanusmurthy Vs. the Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
V. Periya Karuppiah, Member (Judicial): 1. This application has been filed by the applicant for the grant of eligible Reservist Service pension and benefits due to the applicant after setting aside the impugned Order of the 3rd respondent made in RO/2801/1/Cell/10/PandW (SP) dated 12.1.2012, and for other reliefs. 2. The case of the applicant as stated in the application would be as follows :- The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as Combatant on 19.10.1963, on the engagement terms of 09 years Regular Service and 06 years Reserve Service. After completion of 09 years colour service on 19.10.1972, the applicant was retained for five additional months due to national emergency. Due to disbandment of units and for want of vacancy in the Reserve List, the applicant was discharged from Regular Colour Service on 9.3.1973. The applicant took part in 1965 and 1971 Indo- Pakistan wars and was decorated with several medals. He had rendered 09 years and 141 days of regular active ser...
M.Shagunthala Devi, 29/14 Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18. 08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(MD).262 of 2014 M.Shagunthala Devi, 29/14 W/o.Murugapandi, No.-41, Joseph Street, Kamarajapuram, Madurai-625 009. : Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector/District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. : Respondents Prayer Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 02.02.2014 in Vide No.4/Goonda/2014, passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenue viz., Murugapandi S/o.Kottaisamy Thevar, aged 33/14 detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty. !For Petitioner : M/s.Eddy and Emboss Law Firm Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »