Chennai Court November 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 Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. L ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1935 of 2004 dated 07.12.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Court, Madurai.) 1. The appellant/United India Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1800 of 2013, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.1935 of 2004, dated 07.12.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. It is a case on hand is a death caused on account of an accident took place on 21.12.2002 around 17.45 hours in Tharapuram to Pollachi Main Road. The legal heirs of the deceased presented the application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Court, Madurai in MCOP.No.1935 of 2004. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,57,518/- as total compensation. Challenging the award, t...
A. Arokiyanathan Wilson Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.Pa.Pi5(1)/607/100855/2009 dated 25.11.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of name in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 and promote as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police and grant all consequential service monetary benefits.) 1. Prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.Pa.Pi5(1)/607/100855/ 2009 dated 25.11.2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promo...
M. Natarajan (deceased) and Others Vs. Subbulakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 31.10.2013 in E.A.No.13 of 2012 in O.S.No.261 of 1999 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.) 1. Challenging the order passed in E.A.No.13 of 2012 in E.P.No.41 of 2011 in O.S.No.261 of 1999 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, the revision petitioners, who are third parties to the proceedings, have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.261 of 1999 for Specific Performance. The trial Court decreed the suit on 31.12.2001, against which, the second respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2002 before this Court and this Court also dismissed the appeal on 01.04.2010. However, the defendant did not file any appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in the appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2002. Therefore, th...
The Board of Trustees Port of Chennai, Rep. by its Chairman, Vs. M/s. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the Order, dated 22.03.2013 made in O.P.No.432 of 2010.) 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Order, dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned single Judge in O.P.No.432 of 2010 dismissing the O.P, thereby confirming the Award, dated 26.11.2009 passed by the majority of the Arbitrators. 2. The brief facts leading to the present Original Side Appeal are as follows : (i) The appellant / claimant is the Port Trust of Chennai constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The first respondent / counter claimant / contractor was originally incorporated as M/s. Mukund McNally Wellman Ltd., and subsequently changed the name and is now renamed as M/s. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt., Ltd., In order to develop the infrastructure facilities of the Port, the claimant invited tenders to install 3 Nos of Gantry Cranes at Jawahar Dock. The first respondent w...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award made in M.C.O.P.No.310 of 2011, dated 16.09.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Kulithalai.) 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1202 of 2014, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.310 of 2011, dated 16.09.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Kulithalai. 2. It is a case of an injury caused on account of an accident occurred on 17.04.2011 around 5.30 p.m. on Kulithalai - Manaparai Main Road. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Kulithalai in MCOP.No.310 of 2011. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunbal awarded Rs.67,500/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the q...
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Rep. By Senior Regional Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 and Act 1 of 1980, against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2011, passed in RCA.No.967 of 2004 passed by the learned VIII Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order dated 25.05.2004 passed by the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP.No.1238 of 2003 by fixing the fair rent at a very high and exorbitant rate of Rs.37,396/- per month under Section 4 of the Act.) 1. The tenant in RCOP.No.1238 of 2003 is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in RCA.No.967 of 2004, on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 19.07.2011 in RCOP.No.1238 of 2003, dated 25.05.2004 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The case of the respondent/landlord is that the respondent/petitioner is the owner of the first floor ...
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Tiruchirappalli Vs. K. Dhanab ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2644 of 2013, dated 10.04.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III-Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.2644 dated 10.04.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III-Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. It is a case of an injury caused due to an accident took place on 11.08.2003, around 7.30 p.m. near Trichy-Perampalur Main Road. The injured filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III-Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and the Tribunal, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs.2,09,560/- as total compensation. 3. Challenging the same, the appellant United India Insurance Company preferred the present appeal, on ...
Pettioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
1. Based on the note dated 29.08.2016 prepared by the Registry, the matter came to be placed before this Bench, after it was duly actioned by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the very same date, i.e., 29.08.2016. 1.1. By virtue of the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Bench was called upon to examine the validity, sustainability and scope of two communications. The first communication was that of the Law Association (in short Association), which is, dated 23.08.2016. The second communication was that of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram District, Villupuram, dated 19.08.2016. 2. The Association as well as the learned Principal District Judge, in effect, sought clarifications qua the judgments dated 11.03.2016 and 12.04.2016, passed in C.M.A.Nos.428 of 2016 and 2380 of 2015, respectively, by a Division Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Sudhakar (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan. 2.1. Pertinently, scope for such an exercise was left open by ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rengasamy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.261 of 2005, dated 27.01.2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy.) The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2013, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.261 of 2005, dated 27.01.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy. 2. It is a case of a grievous injury caused on account of an accident took place on 25.09.2004 at about 08.00 p.m. near Manamettupatti branch road. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Sub Judge, Trichy. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs2,73,895/- as total compensation. Challenging the award, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has preferred the present ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
1. The present application is filed to extend the time to comply with the conditional order made in C.M.P.No.9716 of 2016 in C.R.P(MD)No.2081 of 2016, dated 7.10.2016, by this Court, within one month from from the date of order.. 2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents would strongly objected for the extension of time, since within the time granted by this Court, the revision petitioner has not complied with the order. Therefore this Court cannot consider the present application. 3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner came forward and submit that the conditional order as directed by this Court on 7.10.2016 shall be complied within the period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Petitioner shall pay the balance amount within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents cannot have any serious objection ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »