Chennai Court November 2016 Judgments
Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust Rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act r/w Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the order, dated 25.04.2016 passed by this Court in O.P.No.694 of 2007. Original Side Appeal under Order 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.04.2016 passed by this Court in O.P.No.694 of 2007 dismissing the said Original Petition and consequently, set aside the Arbitral Award dated 12.12.2006 passed by the 2nd to 4th respondents.) 1. These two Original Side Appeals, one by Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust and another by Kamarajar Port Limited are directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 24.04.2016 in O.P.No.694 of 2007, dismissing the Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Regina Devi and Another Vs. Chellakannu @ Chokkalingam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records relating to fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.276 of 2016 in O.S.No.116 of 2016, dated 7.11.2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and to set aside the same.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks permission of this Court to not press this 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 not pressed. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the fair and decretal order impugned herein in the manner known to law. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!R. Raman @ Bose (Died) and Another Vs. P.T.P. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004, made in A.S.No.137 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1996, made in O.S.No.462 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004, made in A.S.No.137 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1996, made in O.S.No.462 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. 2. The first appellant (since deceased) is the first defendant, who lost in both the Courts below. The second appellant is the legal heir of the first appellant. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The second respondent is the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.462 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Mu...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2006, dated 03.07.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.) Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 03.07.2007.) Common Judgment: 1. It is a case of fatal accident caused on account of an accident took place on 24.03.2006 around 01.30p.m. on Tirunelveli Nagercoil main road. The legal heirs of the deceased person filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunvelveli and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a total sum of Rs.12,62,750/- as compensation. 2. The appeallnt Insurance Company has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!D.H. Rajkumar Vs. Selvamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 7.3.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2010 in S.C. No.225 of 2009 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem.) A-4 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.225 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem, aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2010, has directed this revision. 2. The complainant alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 447, 448 and 307 IPC by A-1 to A-4. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Inspector of Police, Asthampatti Police Station, Salem City. After investigation, police referred the case as mistake of fact, after notice to the complainant, submitted a report to the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant. He filed a protest petition. It was treated as a private complaint. ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Vs. Mayandi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to call for the records from the lower Court, hear the appellant, set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam made in I.A.No.122 of 2009, dated6.7.2009 and allow the Petition by condoning the delay of 174 days in filing the petition to set aside the orders made in I.A.No.787 of 2005 in O.S.No.197 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam.) Order: 1. The Petitioner as well as the respondent and their respective counsels present before this Court. Both the parties have represented before this Court that they have settled the matter out of Court and have also filed a memo of compromise to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of compromise memo. The Compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Veeramani Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila court, Karur, dated 11.09.2015, made in S.C.No.5 of 2015, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.5/2015 on the file of the learned Mahila Fast Track and Sessions Court, Karur. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After trial, by judgment, dated 11.09.2015, the trial court found the appellant/accused guilty under Section 302 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Director General of Police Vs. E. Jayakumar Formerly Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order dated 17.04.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.14300 of 2011.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner made a challenge to the show cause notice by filing W.P(MD).No.14300 of 2011 and one of the grounds urged was that in respect of co-delinquent, namely, C.Vijaya Baskar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, suo motu review was done by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City and against whom also, show cause notice was issued and it was put to challenge in W.P(MD).No.13611 of 2011 and vide its order dated 12.07.2013, it came to be quashed and no appeal was filed and as such, the impugned show cause notice issued by the appellant herein is also liable to be quashed. The learned Judge after taking into account of the said submission found that the order dated 12.07.2013 in W.P(MD).No.13611 of 2011 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Vs. Mariappan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petitions has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order and decree passed in I.A.No.297/05 in O.S.No.105 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.) Order: 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decree passed in I.A.No.297/05 in O.S.No.105 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner after obtaining preliminary decree in O.S.No.105 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, had failed to file a petition for final decree within a period of three years from the date of such preliminary decree which resulted in dismissing the interlocutory petition. Challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The petitioner has averred that he has gone to Kerala to eke out his livelihood and therefore, there was a delay of 475 days in filing a petition for final decree, which ...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ramanathapur ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.10.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.) 1. It is a case of a fatal accident caused in the accident occurred on 11.05.2006 in Rameshwaram -Madurai main road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2006. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as total compensation. 2. Challenging the same, the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd., preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the driver of the vehicle which met with the accident, was not in a possession of valid licence and batch endorsement and in view of the violation of policy condition, the appellant Insurance Comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »