Chennai Court October 2016 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.
M/s. Bass Constructions, By its Proprietrix, Chennai Vs. The Board of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and Decree, dated 07.08.2008 made in O.P.No.46 of 2004.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 07.08.2008 made in O.P.No.46 of 2004 wherein the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator has been set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as follows : (i) The work of construction of Revetment from North of sand screen up to southern side pillar was entrusted to the appellant herein by the work order, dated 09.02.1993 by the respondent-Port Trust. An agreement was entered into on 29.09.1993. The contract was for a period of two years and the total estimate of the work was Rs.2,52,02,915/-. The project of constructing the site revetment requires placing of armour stones (Heavy stone w...
S. Annamalai and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition No.34922 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No.Ref.No.LL1/28436/2015, dated 20.01.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the State-wide seniority list as per G.O.Ms.No.64, Forest Department, dated 08.03.1999, so as to enable the petitioner to get his service regularised in a regular time scale of appointment as Plot Watcher (supernumerary post) as per the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.95, Forest Department, dated 07.08.2009 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. Writ Petition No.34923 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the State-wide seniority list as per G.O.Ms.No.64, Forest Department, dated 08.03.1999 ...
M. Rajendran Vs. S. Meivel and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 20.06.2014, made in MCOP.No.122 of 2012, on the file of the Sub-Court Judge, Thiruttani/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruttani. 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 20.06.2014, made in MCOP.No.122 of 2012, on the file of the Sub-Court Judge, Thiruttani/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruttani, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 2. On 30.06.2006 at about 11.45 p.m., while the claimant was walking on the left side of the Chittoor to Puttur road, Karvet Nagar, a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21-B-2929 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, due to which, he sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi, and afte...
M. Sangiah Vs. R. Mahalingam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to allow the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 made in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 made in O.S.No.597 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.597 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, is the appellant in the above second appeal. 2. The respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.579 of 2004, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is an extent of about 1045 square feet comprised in Survey No.143/4A2E corresponding to old Re-Survey No.129/4A2L. 3. The case of the plaintiff / respondent is that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit propert...
R. Krishnaraj Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Cudda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mrs. T. Girija, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr. L.P. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr. P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, Special Government Pleader appearing for R3. 2. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the entire misappropriation has been committed by one Mr. K. Karunanidhi and action has been initiated against him and he has remitted the entire money. He further submits that the appellant is the Special Officer and in no way in picture in the issuance of Crops Loan and he is only the signing authority in the Cheque along with the accountant as per the recommendation of the Accountant and the Supervisor of the District Co-operative Society. The learned Senior counsel further contended that apart from looking after the respondent-Society, he is in-charge of 7 to 8 coop...
S. Leelavathi Vs. K. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal orders dated 16.09.2015 in I.A.No.506 of 2014 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.506 of 2014 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur, the 1st defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.268 of 2008 for specific performance. 3. The brief case of the petitioner/1st defendant is as follows: Since the 1st defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, she was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 18.09.2009. Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.506 of 2014 to condone the delay of 957 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the 1st defendant has stated that the 2nd defendant is her daught...
Parthiban Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree as made in A.S.No.27 of 2006 dated 31.10.2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram reversing the well founded judgment and decree as made in O.S.No.484 of 1999 dated 26.11.2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.) 1. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for relief of permanent injunction. While the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, the first appellate court has reversed the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on 31.10.2007, the present second appeal is filed. For the sake of better understanding, the parties are described according to their litigative status found in the plaint. 3. The brief facts as found in the plaint:- The suit property for which the plainti...
Varadarajan and Others Vs. The Commissioner, Namakkal Municipality, Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal dated 17.09.2007 in A.S.No.242 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal dated 16.06.2003 in O.S.No.552 of 2002.) 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of suit by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal on the ground that they being in the settled possession of the suit premises, even though they are trespassers, they cannot be evicted without following due process of law. However, the Courts below have erroneously dismissed the suit overlooking Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. The brief facts leading to the case, are as under:- The original plaintiff Mr.V.Varadarajan and one Mr.Chellappa Gounder put up a petty shop on the suit premises prior to 15 years of the date of filing of the suit. On 14.02.1996, Mr.Chellappa G...
Larsen and Toubro Employees Union, Rep. by its Secretary, R. Ramu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 28.02.2012 in W.P.No.4611 of 2012) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Office bearer of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Employees Union, has been transferred by the management of M/s.Larsen and Toubro Limited, Pudhucherry vide proceedings in Ref.No.M-RH/ST-T/AP-1/40343 dated 04.01.2012. 2. According to the petitioner, an industrial dispute has been raised before the office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of Pudhucherry and the said officer has issued notice. Since transfer has been effected pending conciliation, there is infraction of Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in such circumstances, writ petition has been filed. However, after going through the conciliation notice and taking note of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust reported in(2011) 2 SCC 575, at paragraph Nos. 3 to 5, the writ Court vide order dated 28.02.2012, dismissed the writ petition. Paragraph Nos.3 to ...
Dr. Adul Kalam Ilaignar Munnetra Peravai, Rajapalayam Rep. By its Pres ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 09.09.2016 made in W.P.(MD) No/11009 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.8488 of 2016.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner is the appellant. It is a registered Association under the Tamilnadu Societies Act, bearing Registration No.30/16. The President of the appellant Association filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition and it has been stated that the members are residing at R.Reddiapatti Village and Mettur @ Sundarajapuram Village and both villagers are under the control of R.Reddiapatti Village Panchayat for several years, which is situated under Rajapalayam Taluk and the said village is only 11 kms away from Rajapalayam Taluk and there is frequent transport facility from R.Reddiapatti Village for having access to Government Hospitals, Schools, Colleges and other Commercial Institutions etc. 2. The petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »