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 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
( Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.07.2007 and made in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai.) Judgment: 1. The appellant/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1500 of 2007, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.85 of 2006, dated 03.07.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai. 2. It is a case of an injury caused in the accident took place on 24.09.2005 near Kulithalai-Manaparai Main Road. The claim application was filed by the owner of the vehicle claiming damages for the personal injury sustained by him and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Challenging the award, the appellant/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company has preferred this appeal solely on the ground that the petition before the Tri...
Saranya Vs. S. Suresh 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 Principal District Munsif Court,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to conduct the trial in O.S.No.127 of 2015, expeditiously and to conclude the same within the time frame fixed by this Court forthwith, in the interest of justice.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct the Principal District Munsif Court,Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to conduct the trial in O.S.No.127 of 2015, expeditiously and to conclude the same within the time frame fixed by this Court forthwith, in the interest of justice. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2015 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District for declaration that the marriage certificate No.120/2014, dated 31.12.2014 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Nanguneri as null and void, not enforceable under law and not binding on the pl...
Arulmigu Poolanantheswarar Swamy Temple, Chinnamannur, through its Exe ...
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 03.03.2005 made in A.S.No.80 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam confirming the Decree and Judgement dated 25.11.2002 made in O.S.No.239 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to withdraw the suit as there was subsequent agreement made by the parties and a fresh lease agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondents/tenants. 2. It can be seen that the suit filed by the plaintiff though was partly decreed by the Trial Court permitting the plaintiff to fix the rent etc., the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and dismissed the suit in entirety by holding that the cause of action for the suit on the basis of Ex.A.4 does not survive. The lower appellate Court also observed that only course open to the plaintiff is to file a fresh suit. Now, the appell...
Sornathai and Others Vs. Muthathal and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2007 made in A.S.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil, modifying the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2004, made in O.S.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2007 made in A.S.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil, modifying the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2004, made in O.S.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost partly in the first appellate Court. The respondents are the defendants in the suit and the appellants in the first appeal. The appellants filed the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2002 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, for declaration and permane...
M/s. Al Rostamani International Exchange, Represented by its Head Inte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: O.S.A.No.281 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Company Application No.2296 of 2008 in C.P.No.17 of 2004 dated 17.07.2009. O.S.A.No.319 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment passed by this Court in Company Application No.141 of 2009 in C.P.No.17 of 2004 dated 17.07.2009. O.S.A.No.7 of 2010 filed under Section 9 of the Companies Act 1956 against the order passed by this Court in Company Application No.1104 of 2008 in C.P.Nos.17 of 2004 and 107 of 2001 dated 23.12.2008.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The appellant in all the appeals is M/s.AL Rostamani International Exchange. The Original Side Appeal Nos.281 and 319 of 2009 are arising out of the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by this Court in Company Application Nos.2296 of 2008 and 141 of 2009 respectively, whereas, the Original Side Appeal No.7 of 2010 is filed against the orde...
T. Viswanatha Mehta and Others Vs. Krishna Bai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.06.2006 made in C.S.No.902 of 1990.) 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed as against the Judgment and Decree of the learned single Judge, dated 22.06.2006 made in C.S.No.902 of 1990 dismissing the suit for partition. 2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows : (i) The plaintiffs are legal heirs of T.Ranganatha Mehta and defendants are legal heirs of late T.Balakrishna Mehta. The Genealogy tree is as follows : IMAGE (ii) The above said Ranganath Mehta and Balakrishna Mehta are adopted son and son of Subbaraya Mehta respectively. Various properties belonging to the family were partitioned among the family members by appointing a leading member of the Madras Bar, Mr.M.O.Parthasarathy Iyengar as an Arbitrator. As per the Award, dated 14.02.1924, various movable and immovable properties owned by the common ancesto...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009 of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in A.S.No.193 of 2005, reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 17.01.2002 made in O.S.No.437 of 1995, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam.) 1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S.No.437 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.437 of 1995 for a declaration that Sri Hanumar Thirukovil, Aduthurai, belonged to a religious denomination, Padmasaliya community, Aduthurai, that the temple is a denominational institution protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and that the temple is entitled to be managed and administered onl...
M. Akbar Raja Vs. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records in D.C.No.5 of 2010 and its Notice dated 5.5.2010 issued by the first respondent under Rule 5 in Chapter-I, Part-VII, read with Section 35/36 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and to set aside the same.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 16.11.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner and hence the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption''for dismissal''. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Correspondent, Mother Therasa Primary School, Tenkasi Vs. Alagumuthu a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi.) Judgment: 1. The appellant has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1473 of 2006, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.27 of 2003, dated 28.02.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi. 2. It is a case of an injury caused due to the accident took place on 14.08.2002, near Eenavilakku on Tenkasi-Madurai Main Road. The injured filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi in MCOP.No.27 of 2003. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the owner of the vehicle filed the present appeal mainly on the g...
K. Geetanjali and Another Vs. M. Aathilakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.07.2015 passed in C.M.P.No.385 of 2015 in A.S.SR.No.14526 of 2015 on the file of the Principal City Civil Court Judge, Chennai.) 1. The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and final order passed in C.M.P.No.385 of 2015 in A.S.SR.No.14526 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.4580 of 2010 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.4580 of 2010 for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. Since the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court, they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 13.09.2013. 5. Pursuant to the decree passed in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »