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 Tamilnadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Nandanam, Chennai V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 06.12.1999 made in W.P.No.5852 of 1999 on the file of this Court) 1. The original owners of the land / the first respondent and two other adjacent land owners filed petitions for return of the land under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), on account of non-utilisation of the land which formed the subject matter of notification under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act with the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act being dated 17.12.1979 and 24.10.1980 respectively. 2. It is the case of the original petitioner / first respondent that the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the 1894 Act initiated in reference to a majority of the lands surrounding the area of the original petitioner / first respondent stand quashed, for which no fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated. Not only that, the original petitioner and two other adja...
Muthuvijayan Vs. Duraisamy Nadar and Another
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 set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.389 of 2010 in O.S.No.85 of 2010, dated 12.8.2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2.In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
New India Assurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Tirun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007 made in MACOP.No.1252 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007 made in MACOP.No.1253 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli.) Common Judgment: 1. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 07.08.2004 around 11.30 p.m on Madurai-Tirunelveli National Highway and the injured victims filed applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli, seeking compensation and the Tribunal, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.60,500/- and Rs.88,000/- respectively with interest at...
C. Manohar Vs. R. Murugesan and Another
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 16.07.2001 and made in M.C.O.P.No.380 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Assistant Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli District.) 1. The appellant/claimant has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1229 of 2006, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.380 of 2001, dated 16.07.2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Assistant Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli District. 2. It is a case of an injury caused due to the accident occurred on 27.06.1997 at about 16.30 hours in Trichirappalli to Salem Main Road. The injured filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Assistant Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli District, in MCOP.No.380 of 2001. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,09,000/- as total compensation and the claimant having not satisfied with the quan...
K.S. Rajaram Vs. P.K. Kanmani
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 set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 in O.S.No.1840 of 2005, dated 27.8.2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 in O.S.No.1840 of 2005, dated 27.8.2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein has filed the above suit in O.S.No.1840 of 2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for costs. In the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioner has filed the above application in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1 of 1872 as amended Act IV of 2003 and section 151 C.P.C to send the declaration deed dated 22.8.200...
M. Reeta Baby Vs. District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunaga ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher as well as direct the respondents to disburse the salary to the petitioner from the date of petitioner's initial appointment i.e., 29.04.2005 to till date.) Order: 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to approve her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher and consequential direction to the respondents to disburse the salary to her from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 29.04.2005 to till date. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in a sanctioned post of Junior Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.04.2005 in the third respondent school. Subsequently, the third respondent submitted a proposal for her approval to the first respondent on 27.10.2005 as well as for grant of salary for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Since there was no reply, the third r...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager Madras ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 11.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam at Madurai.) 1. The present case is a case of fatal accident took place on 20.12.2001, around 16.15 hours, near Lakshmipuram Rengaraja Theatre at Theni-Periyakulam main road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.78 of 2002 and after considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, awarded Rs.1,63,300/- as total compensation, with interest at the rate of 9%. Challenging the same, the appellant, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. 3. The learned co...
Senthil @ Senthil Kumar Vs. Sujatha
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1363 of 2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.993 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2004, dated 15.6.2011 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and to set aside the same as illegal. Prayer in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1364 of 2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.570of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2004, dated 23.2.2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and to set aside the same as illegal.) Common Order: 1. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1363 of 2011 has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.993 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2004, dated 15.6.2011 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and to set aside the same as illegal. 2. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No...
S. Mohan and Another Vs. Johnson Selvaraj and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2005 made in MCOP.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.) Common Judgment: 1. The accident took place on 19.10.2001 at about 04.00 p.m on Panakudy to Nagercoil National Highways near Leppai Kudiyiruppu junction. It is an accident occurred between the transport corporation bus and the Lorry. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.22 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, and the Tribunal considering the facts and the circumstances, awarded Rs.2,18,905/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal fixed contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50 as between the drivers of the appellant transport corporation bus and Lorry and out of the total compensation, the appellant transport corporation was directed to pay 50% of...
M/s. Asianet Communications Ltd Vs. Sun T.V. Network Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Suit filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, men, representatives assigns and anyone whosoever claiming through the defendants from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in respect of the exclusive satellite television telecast rights of the Malayam feature film 'AHAM' in whole or reproduction of any part thereto, by exploitation for public or private viewing by broadcasting on the first defendant's channel or on any other channel satellite telecast: directing the first defendant to pay to the plaintiff damages in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs. Suit filed under Sections 55 and 62 of the Indian Copyright Act read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for declaring that the plaintiff alone is entit...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »