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.
The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Assistant Mana ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order passed M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1998, dated 02.08.2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal Subordinate Judge), Padmanabhapuram. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to modify the judgement and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1998, dated 2.8.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal Subordinate Judge), Padmanabhapuram.) 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1998, dated 02.08.2004 on the ground of liability and quantum. 2. The claimants 1 to 8 have filed cross-objection to modify the judgement and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 1998, dated 02.08.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal Subordinate Judge), Padmanabhapuram. 3. According to the appellant that the respondents 1 to 8 are ...
Jayasree and Others Vs. N. Lakshmanan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2009, dated 06.06.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The claimant, namely, K.Veeriah, who sustained grievous injuries in the accident that took place on 27.08.2008 at 05.30 p.m., filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.1100 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs.61,71,000/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs and Seventy One Thousand only), restricted to a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only). 2. The claimant, during the pendency of the claim petition, died and therefore, his wife, minor son and minor daughter and father of the deceased claimant came on record and prosecuted the said claim petition. The Tribunal, vide order dated 06.06.2013, has held that there is no proximity to the cause of death, viz., injur...
V.S. Krishna and Another Vs. J. Amsaveni and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 15.11.2011, in I.A.No.1936 of 2011, in O.S.No.89 of 2004, passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.) Order: 1. The learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners submit that the suit filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/third defendant filed an Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.1936 of 2011, praying to stay the operation of the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.89 of 2004. The learned District Munsif, Alandur, by order, dated 15.11.2011, granted stay in the said Application, and challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel further submitted that against the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the first respondent/third defendant has preferred First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Cour...
S. Balasubramanian Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Princ ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the Gratuity, Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Leave Surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016 and to disburse the Gratuity, Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Leave Surrender and other terminal benefits of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he retired from the service as Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur on attaining the age of superannuation; that the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 29.05.2012 directed the 4th responden...
G. Robin Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary, Higher Educati ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 02.06.2009 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the abovesaid statement, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
K.S. Murugan (Managing Director of M/s. MKS Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in Order No.7 dated 31.03.2016 quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.) Challenging the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin in Order No.7, dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Admittedly, against the order passed by the first respondent, there is an appeal remedy available before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellate remedy provided under the Act before the CESTAT is not only an efficacious but an effective remedy and the CESTAT is entitled to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts and hence, without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the first respondent w...
K. Gandhi Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue Hindu Kattunayakkan Community Certificate to the petitioner's hildren, namely, (1) G.Vignesh and (2) G.Sneha, based on his application dated 13.10.2015, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Hindu Kattunayakkan Community (Scheduled Tribe) and according to him, his community people used to predict the fortune of others through palmistry and it is their main profession and they were originally nomads and gradually, they become semi-nomads and now, they are settling and having a permanent abode of their own. 3. It is also stated by the petitioner that he is residing at Kottarakurichi village for more than 40 years and he is also a graduate and he has been issued with Hindu Kattunayakkan Community (Scheduled Tribe)...
P. Karuppannan Vs. M.K. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5822 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal dated 11.11.2010 and direct the Learned Magistrate to take the complaint on file.) This Revision Petition has been directed at the instance of the complainant in a cheque bouncing case as against the dismissal of his complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal in Cr.M.P.No.5822 of 2010 on 11.11.2010. 2. In his private complaint, the revision petitioner had alleged that the respondent has borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from him on 10.08.2010 and issued him a cheque drawn on The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Namakkal. He also alleged that when the cheque was put into collection, it was returned as no account is existing. In spite of the statutory notice and time, the respondent has not paid the amount. 3. In the circumstances, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner ...
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Bye-Pass Road, Tirunelveli V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, praying to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P. No.72 of 1990 dated 22.03.2004 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the Land Acquisition Tribunal-cum-Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, in LAOP No.72 of 1990, dated 22.03.2004. 2. The following are the brief facts: 2.1. The land belonging to the respondents was located in two survey numbers, namely, Survey No.4/1B and 4/2B in Sivanadiyarkulam in Palayamkottai Taluk within the Sub Registration District of Melapalayam. It is not in dispute that the total area of the land is 1.27.0 hectares equivalent to approximately 3 acres 16 cents. The land was acquired from the respondents by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 25.04.1988. The acquisition is for the purpose of laying bye-pass road. 2.2. The Land Ac...
Pappa Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to conclude the enquiry in Petitioner appeal TL/09/03857, dated 14-09-2009, filed before the 1st Respondent and further directing the 1st Respondent to pass orders on the above appeal within a time frame and thus render justice.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry in Petitioner's appeal TL/09/03857, dated 14-09-2009, filed before the 1st respondent and further directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the above appeal within a time frame. 2. No representation for the petitioner. Heard Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Since the appeal is pending before the first respondent from 14.09.2009, considering the nature of the prayer, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner,...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »