Chennai Court September 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.
Manoj Mohan Kumar Vs. C.Sundar Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :16. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH C.M.A.No.1833 of 2011 Manoj Mohan Kumar .. Appellant vs. 1.C.Sundar Raj 2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., No.8, Esplanade, UIL Buildings, Chennai108. .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 9.11.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1484 of 2007 on the file of the II Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. For appellant : Mr.A.Kalaiarasan For respondents : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, for R.2 R.1- Exparte. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, by order dated 9.11.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1484 of 2007, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant.2. The claim petition was fil...
Union of India Owning Southern Railways Vs. A.Subburayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:16. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.1578 of 2009 The Union of India owning Southern Railways rep.by it's General Manager Chennai ... Appellant Vs. 1.A.Subburayan 2.Pusparani ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 28 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the Order dated 21.11.2008, in O.A.No.25 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench and set aside the same. For Appellant : Mr.V.Haribabu For Respondents : Mr.R.Natesh Kumar - - - JUDGMENT The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 21.11.2008, in O.A.No.25 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench and set aside the same.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The deceased Arulraj boarded a Train MAS, on 09.02.2005, at about 09.30 a.m., in order to go to Arakkonam. Due to heavy rush and jerk in the train, the deceased, who was s...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others Vs. K. Vasa ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties prefer an appeal in F.A.No.988/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.303/2006, dated 12.4.2010, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.285/2012, for enhancement.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member F.A.No.988/2011 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. F.A.No.285/2012 2. The complainant is the appellant. 3. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties for a direction to refund a sum of Rs.67,615/- with interest at 12% from 19.8.2005 and to pay Rs.10,000/- for incidental expenses incurred by the complainant and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs against the opposite parties for the alleged negligence and delay in executing the sale deed for the purchase of house from the opposite parties. The co...
A.N. YasmIn Vs. Tmt. Prabha Reddy Managing Director-proprietor Prabas ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.16.06.2009 in CC. No.20/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.7.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) R. Regupathi, President 1. The complainant, unable to succeed in her attempt, before the District Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The complainant, who suffered dandruff and hair loss, attracted by the television programme of the 3rd opposite party, approached the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, for taking herbal treatment with them, with a fond hope of maintaining beautiful appearance with long hair. The complainant, an unmarri...
B.C. Rajan Vs. Mrs. K. Padmalatha and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
(The Respondents are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,365.50 with 24% interest towards the expenses incurred by them and to complete the unfinished construction work as per the agreement and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and tension and to pay costs. The District Forum Allowed the complaint. Hence appeal is preferred by the Appellant / opposite party praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.637/2005, dated 10.02.2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.8.2013, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants have entered into construction agreement with the opposite party on 25.02.2002 ...
A.Shanmugasundaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12. 09.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition Nos.9084, 9108 and 9144 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 A.Shanmugasundaram .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9084/2009 G.Ramesh .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9108/2009 T.N.Muruganandham .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9144/2009 Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary Rural Development Department St.George Fort, Chennai 9 2. The Commissioner of Rural Development Saidapet, Chennai 115.3. The District Collector Ariyalur District Ariyalur 4. N.Vaidhyanathan 5. N.Krishnamoorthy 6. J.Arumugam 7. P.Ramachandran 8. P.Nallamuthu 9. S.Murugesan 10.D.Sivaji 11. S.A.Anbazhagan 12. G.Sivagurunathan .. Respondents in all Writ Petitions Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to fixation of seniority of Assistant in the district unit of Rural development D...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. S.Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.43399 of 2002 The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (formerly known as Dr.Ambedkar Transport Corporation Ltd.,) Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 ... Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Krishnamurthy 2.The Presiding Officer 1st Additional Labour Court ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in I.D.No.609 of 1997, dated 03.04.2002. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi for R1 R2 - Court - - - ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.04.2002 in I.D.No.609 of 1997, passed by the second respondent.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner/Transport Corporation submits that the first respondent S.Krishnamurthy was appointed as a Ma...
Nagaraj Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12. 09.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Crl.O.P.No.21676 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 Nagaraj ... Petitioner Vs The State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Town Police Station, Udumalpet, Thiruppur District. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 03.07.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1030 of 2013 in S.C.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER Accused/petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruppur in Crl.M.P.No.1030 of 2013 in S.C.No.23 of 2013.2. Heard both sides.3. Nagaraj, the petitioner is being prosecuted before the said Judge, for offences under Sections 376(2) (f) of IPC and Section 5(c)(m) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of child from sexual offen...
R.Joseph Vimal Sudhakar Vs. 1. the Zonal Manager,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12. 09/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.15270 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 R.Joseph Vimal Sudhakar .. Petitioner vs 1. The Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, Southern Zonal Office, Chennai-2.2. The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-2.3. The Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Unit-I, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-2. .. Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the first respondent pertaining to its notice bearing Mktg/D-I dated 19.10.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner by considering the representation dated 31.05.2012. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh ^For Respondent ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan *** :ORDER The petitioner was employed as a Development Offi...
S.Hemamalini Vs. the Special Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.44830 of 2002 S.Hemamalini ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Special Commissioner for Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 2.The District Revenue Officer Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Mailaduthurai Nagapattinam District 4.P.Muthaiah ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent pursuant to the order passed in his Proceedings No.G2/17930/1997, dated 21.11.2002 and quash the same. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan AGP for R1 to R3 R4 - No appearance - - - ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 21.11.2002 in G2/17930/1997, passed by the first respondent.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »