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.
R. Mathavi Vs. K. Rajapandiyan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.112 of 2015, on the file of the Sub Court, Palani and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai and to be tried the same along with M.C.No.148 of 2015, filed by the petitioner.) 1. The present petition is filed seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.112 of 2015, on the file of the Sub Court, Palani and transfer the same to the Family Court, Madurai and to be tried the same along with M.C.No.148 of 2015, filed by the petitioner. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 27.05.2011, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and due to the strained relationship between the parties, both are living separately and the petitioner filed the present petition seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.112 of 2015 filed by the respondent for divorce, which is pending before the Subordinate Court, Palani. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is u...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Lal Bahadur Sastri Street, Madurai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,1944 to set aside the Final Order No.746/2006 dated 17.08.2006 passed by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Appeal No.E/1136 of 1999 (arising out of Order in Original No.1/98 dated 29.01.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai). M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The appellant is the Revenue and aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Region Bench, Chennai (in short 'CESTAT') dated 17.08.2006 holding that any interest on duty under Section 11 AB and to impose penalty under Section 11 AC cannot be levied prior to 28.09.1996 as well as rejecting the contention of the claim of the Revenue demanding duty from M/s.Vasu Chemicals, Madurai for the year 1992 is no longer valid, came forward to file this appeal and in the grounds of appeal, the following substantial question of law are raised...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagercoil Vs. ...
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 02.08.2006 made in MCOP.No.59 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.) Judgment: 1. It is the unfortunate case of fatal accident took place on 05.12.2001 about 10.10 p.m near Parvathipuram Bus Stand. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application in MCOP.No.59 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,67,000/- as total compensation with 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, mainly on the ground that the person deceased died on account of the drunken mood and therefore, contributory negligence ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal considering the said factor. But the Tribunal fixed the liability only on the appellant insurance company, ...
N. Periyasamy and Others Vs. P. Arumugham and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2010 in A.S.No.19 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rasipuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.) 1. The defendants have preferred this second appeal impugning the judgement and decree dated 24.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rasipuram, confirming the judgement and decree dated 24.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. 2. The suit has been laid for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The suit has been laid in respect of the Cart Track shown as ABCDE in the plaint plan. According to the plaintiffs, they claim right to the suit Cart track depicted in the plaint plan under the sale deed dated 27.01.1965 marked as Ex.A1. Further, according to the plaintiffs, they have prescribed theie title ...
The President, Kallal Panchayat Vs. A.M.A.MR.BL. Kuzhandaivelu Chettiy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004 made in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.02.2003, made in O.S.No.46 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.) Judgment: 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004 made in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.02.2003, made in O.S.No.46 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 2. The appellant is the fourth defendant, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 1 to 3. Pending second appeal, the first respondent died and the legal heirs of the first respondent were brough...
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch ...
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 29.07.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and praying to set aside the same.) 1. The appellant/United India Insurance Company Limitedhas filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1153 of 2006, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.492 of 2002, dated 29.07.2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. It is a case of an injury caused due to the accident occurred on 19.08.2001 at about 04.45 p.m. near Trichy-Karur Main Road. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in MCOP.No.492 of 2002. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the awar...
Mallika and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2004, dated 28.10.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1st Additional Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli.) Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2004, dated 28.10.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1st Additional Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli.) Common Judgment CMA(MD)No.1238 of 2006 1. The appellant/claimant filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1238 of 2006, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2004, dated 28.10.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1st Additional Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli. 2. It is the case of an injury caused due to the accident took place on 15.04.2004 at about 2.15 p.m. near Tirunelveli-Madurai Bye pass Road. The injured victim filed an a...
T.M. Saminathan (Died) and Others Vs. P.K. Ponnusamy (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the petition and order dated 20.09.2013 made in I.A.No.766 of 2011 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.766 of 2011 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,92,000/- together with interest and to create a charge from the suit properties for the payment of suit claim. The defendants filed their written statement and were contesting the suit. 3. When the suit was taken up for trial, the defendants remained absent and therefore, an exparte decree was passed on 05.02.2008. 4. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree in C.F.R.No.2234 of 20...
Saritha Mittal Proprietrix, M/s. Vishnu Ispat Udyog Rep. by Power of A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order, dated 25.11.2010 in C.C.No.14899 of 2007 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.) 1. This revision has been directed by the Complainant in C.C.No.14899 of 2007 as against the dismissal of his complaint by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. The respondent is being prosecuted before the said Court for an offence under Sec.138 N.I. Act. It is a cheque bouncing case. The cheque amount is Rs.2,69,660/-. The accused defended the case himself through a lawyer. 3. On 25.11.2010, the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint held as under: ''Complainant absent for the past 3 hearings. No representation. Accused present. Trial stage. Matter is pending from the year 2007. Already final notice sent to complainant on 21.1.2010. Thereafter, complainant appeared 2 times. Without proceeding trial then from 11.6.2010 neither complainant n...
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Saroja 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 18.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.880 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirapalli.) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.895 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirapalli. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.2599 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirapalli. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 made in MCOP.No.885 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirapalli. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor V...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »