Chennai Court October 2015 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.
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. A. Venkatesh and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Degree dated 04.04.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4616 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 14.12.2009 at about 01.00 p.m., the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-02AH-0713 at ICF Road and at that point of time a TVS XL super bearing registration No.TN-01AD-8168 ridden by the rider came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries, hence the claimant had levelled a claim petition against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim petition. The respondent submits that the vehicle had not been covered by valid documents, further the rider of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving licence...
A. Ishwarya Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to not to harass the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the 2nd respondent police to not to harass the petitioner. 3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner's husband, petition enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed in C.S.R.No.184 of 2015 . 4. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. However, in case of conducting any enquiry, the second respondent is directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610....
D. Rukmani Ammal and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented b ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeal (MD).No.489 of 2015 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.21284 of 2014. Writ Appeal (MD).No.490 of 2015 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.21285 of 2014.) 1. Before the Writ Court (learned single Judge), in W.P.(MD).Nos.21284 and 21285 of 2014, the appellants herein (writ petitioners) challenged the validity of the order dated 24.07.2013, passed by the second respondent-District Collector, Tuticorin, in and by which, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (for short, 'TNSCB') was granted permission for constructing houses and buildings for the poor people, i.e. landless poor labourers who were dispossessed from their hutment at the time of widening the roads. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed both the Writ Petitions by common order dated 29.04.2015, against w...
K. Bharathi Vs. The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Commercial C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with the C.C.No.319 of 2003 onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.) 1. On 14.10.2015, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, hence the matter was ordered to be posted today i.e., on 28.10.2015 under the caption 'for dismissal'. 2. Even today when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.08.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.803 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Tiruchirappalli and allow this civil miscellaneous appeal.) This is an insurer's appeal on the question of quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. First respondent, who sustained injuries in a road accident on 23.12.2009, claimed compensation in M.C.O.P.No.803 of 2013, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Tiruchirappalli, for personal injuries. 3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, which has been insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Considering the medical evidence of the Doctor, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method for 70% disability sustained by the claimant, took the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and determined th...
K. Thirunavukkarasu and Others Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 1st respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.65 of 2015 pending on the file of the 1st respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the firstt respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.65 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.65 of 2015 on 20.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r) and (s) 3(2) (va) SC/ST POA Amendment...
N. Marimuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.3.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with the law and also file the final report.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.03.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with the law and also file the final report. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given complaint to the second respondent on 14.03.2015, but the second respondent police had not taken any steps to register a case and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief. 3. Today the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, is present before this and submits that on the basis of the complaint given by th...
N.K. Kubendaran Naidu Vs. N.K. Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2015 made in IA.No.9086 of 2015 in IA.No.16575 of 2013 in OS.No.4012 of 1999 on the file of the learned III Additional Judge (in-charge) of II Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in OS.No.4012/1999 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the respondent herein is the plaintiff therein. The respondent / plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition. 2. The details of the suit are not necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. 3. While so, a preliminary decree was passed on 5.2.2003 in OS.No.4012/1999 and the same attained finality. Thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the final decree proceedings. The revision petitioner was admittedly set exparte in the final decree proceedings. In these circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner made his inspection and seems to have filed his report...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sathikbasha and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
S. Manikumar, J. 1. On 28.9.2015, Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for the Appellant in C.M. A.No.933 of 2015 submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Insurance Council and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2007 (2) TN MAC 62 (SC): 2007 ACJ 2006 (SC), has not been implemented in letter and spirit, and further submitted that Police are not filing reports to the concerned Tribunals, for effective and proper adjudication of the disputes. 2. Taking note of the above, we requested Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, Government of Tamil Nadu, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. 3. Reverting and on the basis of the Memorandum in Rc.No.187352/Crime.IV(1)/2015, dated 23.10.2015 issued by the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that in compliance with the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Insurance Council and others v....
S. Petchiraja Vs. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Respondent No.5 to not to harass the petitioner and his family members by considering the representation dated 21.08.2015 in accordance with law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent is harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.2 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302 r/w 149 IPC and 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 r/w 149 IPC. 4. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the fifth respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but let the police investigate into the matter in accordance with law and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »