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.
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
1. This Petition is filed to amend the suit number in para 6 of the order passed in the above C.R.P, dated 31.8.2016 in which it is observed that ''the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.428 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'' 2. In the above paragraph the learned counsel for the Petitioner wants to amend the suit number as O.S.No.348 of 2012 instead of O.S.No.428 of 2012 and therefore,para No.6 reads as follows: ''the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.348 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'' 3. Registry is directed to issue fresh amended order copy to the parties, with the aforesaid correction....
Thanamani Vs. Karunamoorthy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
Judgment: 1. The appellant has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1452 of 2007, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.14 of 2005, dated 19.09.2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Pattukkottai. 2. It is a case of an injury caused in an accident took place on 01.10.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. near Aathikotttai keni bridge bus stop. The injured filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Pattukkottai in MCOP.No.14 of 2005. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,960/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/claimant has preferred an appeal seeking enhancement on the ground that the partial permanent disability was assessed by the Doctor as 40% and the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on that head. Further, the compensation for future loss of income was granted by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/-, which is inadequate,...
Sundarrajan Vs. Pushpanathan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2011 in A.S.No.110 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli reversing the Judgement and decree dated 27.11.2009 made in O.S.No.262 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.) 1. Despite the fact that the death of the first respondent is reported, no steps have been taken to bring the legal heirs on record. Even when the matter was listed on 14.11.2016, there was no representation. Subsequently, when the matter was posted on 21.11.2016, this Court passed an order, giving an opportunity to the appellant to take steps. Even today when the matter is called, there is no representation for the appellant. In such circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There is no order as to costs....
B. Raghavendran Vs. Inspector General of Police, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records relating to the order dated 08.07.2015 in Ma.Aa.No.658/2015 Na.Ka.No.H2/026836/2015 passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in services of Home Guards with all consequential monetary and other benefits.) 1. The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuus, calling for the concerned records relating to the order dated 08.07.2015 in Ma.Aa.No.658/2015 Na.Ka.No.H2/026836/2015 passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in services of Home Guards with all consequential monetary and other benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally he was ...
Mary Santhanarani and Others Vs. D. Selvi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004 made in MCOP.No.1141 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli.) Judgment: 1. It is the unfortunate case of fatal accident took place on 10.03.2002 around 15.15 hours on Tirunelveli-Nagercoil main road near Joe-Suresh Engineering College. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.74,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Challenging the award, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was aged about 65 years and was working as Accountant in A.C.A.Roche Chit Funds Pvt Ltd. He was working even at the ...
R. Muthusamy Gounder and Others Vs. Veerappa Gounder and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Judge, Sub-Court, Palani to dispose of C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 on its file (against I.A.No.430 of 2014 in O.S.No.122 of 2014, on the file of District Munsif court, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District) within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Judge, Sub-Court, Palani to dispose of C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 on its file(against I.A.No.430 of 2014 in O.S.No.122 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif court, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District) within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioners, C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 has been filed against the order made in I.A.No.430 of 2014 in O.S.No.122 of 2014, dated 19.9.2014, on the file of District Munsif court, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. The above said I.A has been filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Hen...
M/s. Newlink Overseas Finance Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director A. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs: (a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.33,80,000/- together with further interest at the rate of 23% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the date of plaint till date of realisation; and (b) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit.) The Plaint:- The plaintiff, a public limited company, incorporated under Indian Companies Act, has filed the suit seeking a direction against the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.33,80,000/- together with further interest at the rate of 23% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the date of plaint till date of realisation and for costs. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant, a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, had availed financial as...
Ammavasi @ Virumani and Others Vs. Srinivasagam, Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.10.2010 in A.S.No.165 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam confirming the Judgement and decree dated 02.09.2009 in O.S.No.390 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam.) 1. This matter was adjourned repeatedly on several occasions at the instance of the appellants. Despite the fact that request for adjournment was seriously opposed by the Counsel for the respondents on early occasion, this Court was so lenient on the earlier occasion and adjourned the matter to give opportunity to the Counsel for appellants to argue the matter on merits. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.11.2016 under the caption 'for orders', adjournment was sought for by the counsel for the appellant and hence, the matter was directed to be posted either for disposal on merits or for dismissal. Even today, the learned counsel submits that he is not ready an...
D. Mohanraj Vs. Valarmathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore in M.C. No. 32 of 2009 awarding maintenance to the respondent herein.) 1. This revision is by an husband against his wife. 2. The revision petitioner married the respondent, on 17.06.2005, in Coimbatore. Subsequently, difference of opinion arose between them. The respondent/wife came back to her parent's home. In M.C. No.32/2009 in the Family Court, Coimbatore she claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The respondent filed a counter opposing the same. 3. The respondent examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-6, while the revision petitioner examined himself as RW-1, Duraiswamy and Krishnappan as PWs 2 and 3 and marked copy of Patta as Ex.R4. 4. Appreciating the said evidence, the Family Court ordered him to pay her Rs.1250/- per month, from the date of Maintenance Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the ...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A. Muniammal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Ramanathapuram.) 1. The appellant/United India Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.241 of 2008, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.156 of 2006, dated 31.08.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Ramanathapuram. 2. It is a case of a fatal accident occurred on 08.07.2005 at about 03.30 p.m. near L.Karungulam Bus Stop. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Ramanathapuram. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/United India Insurance Company has preferred this appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »