Chennai Court November 2016 Judgments

M/s. Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd., No.15A, Thillai Nagar Main Road Tric ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the common order dated 08.03.2016 made in I.A.Nos.1 to 46 of 2016 in Arbitration Case Nos.PD 1 to 46 of 2016 on the file of the Sole Arbitrator Mr.V.Paul Das, B.A.,B.L., Judge (Retd.)) 1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 8.3.2016 passed by the sole Arbitrator in I.A.Nos.1 to 46 of 2016 in Arbitration Case Nos.PD 1 to 46 of 2016, whereby the learned Arbitrator has directed as follows:- 1. The respondents are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) on or before 23.3.2016 and another sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) on or before 8.4.2016 to the petitioners/claimants towards part of the EMI arrears as on the date of the petitions, in respect of the above arbitration cases. 2. The respondents are also directed to continue to pay jointly and severally the monthly EMI payments...

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Represented by its Manager, C ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.496 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pattukottai. Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.497 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pattukottai.) Common Judgment: 1. It is a case of an injury caused on account of an accident occurred on 03.07.2005 around 06.00a.m. near Thanjavur - Pattukottai road. The injured claimants filed applications seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pattukkottai in M.C.O.P.Nos.496 and 497 of 2005 and the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs.9,500/- and Rs.89,200/- respectively as total compensation. 2. Challenging the same, th...

T. Murugan Vs. Karuppuchamy and Others

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree of the lower appellate Court dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.124 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 27.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.) 1. One of the legal representatives of the defendant, who is the fourth appellant before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, for declaration that the suit second schedule properties belong to the plaintiffs and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The su...

A. Raja Vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and Oth ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare, the reservation, made in respect of the petitioner land in R.S.No.120/1C1 situated at Vandiyur I Bit Village, Vandiyur, Madurai under the Vandiyur Detail Development Plan No.4 to have lapsed by operation of section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (TN Act 35 of 1974) in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner Aruppukottai Municipality vs. Kamakshi Shelty reported in 2011(8) MLJ 437.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Declaration that the reservation, made in respect of the petitioner land in R.S.No.120/1C1 situated at Vandiyur I Bit Village, Vandiyur, Madurai under the Vandiyur Detail Development Plan No.4 has lapsed by operation of section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (TN Act 35 of 1974) in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner Aruppukottai Municipality vs. Kamakshi Shelty report...

K. Dhanapal Vs. Sheik Ismail

Court: Chennai

Reported in:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100, Order 41, Rule 27 (b), Order 41, Rule 27(2) –Reasons- Did not Appellate Court fail to follow procedure laid down in Order 41, Rule 27 (b) and 27(2) of C.P.C.-

Court Held –Relying on decision of Apex Court – Perusal of said decision would show that Appellant Court should have given reasons while allowing additional evidence – As reasons was required for enabling Court to pronounce Judgment or for any substantial cause as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27, 28 of Code –As such Lower Appellate Court accepting reception of additional evidence and also placing reliance on same for rejecting case of Respondent as regards disputed property is misdirected and against cannons of well established principles and laws regards reception of additional evidence under aforesaid provisions.

Paras: (12, 15)

Cases Relied:
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore Vs. H.Narayanaiah etc, AIR 1976 SC 2403(1).

Comparative Citation:
2017 (2) LW 36,

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 passed in A.S.No.48 of 2010 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram and reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.354 of 2005 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet.) 1. The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgement and decree dated 16.12.2010 made in A.S.No.48 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2009 made in O.S.No.354 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal. a. Did not the appellate court err in marking Ex.B18 and B19 without directing the parties to let in ad...

G. Krishnaveni Vs. A. Arumugam and Another

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.67 of 2010 in un.Reg. A.S.No..... of 2010, dated 14.6.2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.67 of 2010 in un.Reg. A.S.No.....of 2010, dated 14.06.2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2004 before Sub-Court, Thoothukudi for the relief of specific performance and for other reliefs and after contest, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner took steps for preferring an appeal suit. Since the petitioner was bed-ridden and the Petitioner being a lady, aged about 40 years, was suffering from uterous trouble and continuously taking Ayurvedic treatment at Kerala, there had occurred a delay of 527 days in filing ...

Murugesan (Died) and Others Vs. Murugesan and Others

Court: Chennai Madurai

Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 19.02.2016 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2013 made in O.S.No.82 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram District. 1. The second defendant and the legal representatives of the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2000 for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to any right in respect of the suit properties, which belong to the plaintiff's family and for recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, are as follows: 3.1. The suit properties originally belong to the plaintiffs ancestor, by name, ...

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagercoil Vs. ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2004, dated 19.10.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Special Court, Pudukkottai.) 1. It is a case of an injury caused in the accident occurred on 19.09.2002 around 08.00p.m. near Keeramangalam. The injured claimant filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2004 and the Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted a sum of Rs.45,000/- as total compensation. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the driver who was driving the vehicle, which met with the accident, was not in a possession of valid driving licence and the same is in violation of policy conditions and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. In other words, the Ins...

Pandiaraja Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Statio ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment, dated 25.01.2016, made in S.C.No.384 of 2014, on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and allow the above criminal appeal.) Judgment: M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No:384/14 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC. By Judgment dated 25.01.16, the Trial Court found guilty, convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The 1st accused was found not guilty of other offences under sections 294(b), 341 and acquitted u/s.235(i) Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief...

K.M. Raju Vs. Javed Sait

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Udhagamandalam.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Udhagamandalam, who has suffered a decree for specific performance is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell 8 cents of land along with a residential building to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and the plaintiff having accepted the offer, entered into an registered sale agreement with the defendant on 29.4.2002. On the date of the agreement, he had paid an advance of Rs.6,00,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid within a period of one year i.e. on or before 28.04.2003. 3. Since the defendant did come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 21.3.2003 demanding execution of the sale deed. The defendant sent a reply on 28....