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.
M. Kalyana Sundaram Vs. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petitions has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair order and decreetal orders passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 29.12.2005 in I.A.Nos.152 and 180 of 2005 in O.S.No.18 of 2005.) Common Order: 1. The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the fair order and decreetal orders passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 29.12.2005 in I.A.Nos.152 and 180 of 2005 in O.S.No.18 of 2005. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff herein filed O.S.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of two houses described in the two schedules. The petitioner is the first defendant in the said suit. Summons were served on 30.06.2005 by the Court below. As per the amended Act, the parties should file written statement within a period of 90 days. When the suit wa...
K. Sathish Kumar and Another Vs. M. Prabhakaran and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2013 passed in MCOP.No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur.) Common Judgment: CMA(MD)No.173 of 2015 1. It is the case of an injury caused due to the accident took place on 16.01.2012 about 12.30 p.m on Karur to Chinnatharapuram road near Solaipudur. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.133 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur, and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.3,64,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, the appellant insurance company has filed this appeal, on the ground that it is a case, where the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid badge endorsement and therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compe...
The Branch Manager, M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Coonoor V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1661 of 2005, dated 14.08.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Court, Madurai.) Judgment: 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1318 of 2013, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1661 of 2005, dated 14.08.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident occurred in an accident took place on 14.04.2005 at about 3.15 a.m. near Power House, Paravai Dindigul-Madurai Main Road. The heirs of the deceased i.e. wife and two minor children have filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Court, Madurai. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.6,43,000/- as total compensation. Chall...
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Muruganan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2008, dated 11.12.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli.) 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1990 of 2013, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2008, dated 11.12.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli. 2. It is a case of the injury caused accident took place on 22.11.2002 at about 9.30 a.m. near Trichy to Thuraiyur Road. The first respondent/claimant has filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded Rs.51,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Rep. by its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P. No.35336/2006 dated 02.09.2010, by which, the writ court, declined to grant the prayer of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vellore, and to quash the order dated 02.05.2005 made in Approval Petition No.338 of 2003. 2. The charges framed against the second respondent are that he was absent for the period from 18.08.2001 to 06.09.2001 without any prior intimation or getting leave from the authorities and he had caused loss to the Corporation due to his absence. He was terminated from service along with a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,251.50P towards one month wages. 3. Before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, the first respondent herein, employee/respondent No.2, contended that while he was working in Arcot Depot, he was issued with a charge memo dated 27.09.2001 stating that he was unauthorisedly absent on duty from 08.08.2001 to 06.09.2001. Denying the same, the secon...
Thayanayaki Ammal Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in A.S.No.92 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2005 made in O.S.No.436 of 2003 on the file of Learned District Munsif, Villupuram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in A.S.No.92 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2005 made in O.S.No.436 of 2003 on the file of he District Munsif Court, Villupuram. 2. The suit has been laid for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband and the plaintiff and her husband are residing in the suit property. Natham Patta has also been granted by the Thasildar...
M. Muthurakku Vs. Ponnuchamy Pillai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to reverse the decision of the Courts below, the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Sivagangai made in A.S.No.71 of 2010, dated 26.06.2013 confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of the District Munsif, Sivagangai made in O.S.No.36 of 2007 dated 26.02.2010 and to decree the said suit as prayed for.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit in O.S.No.36 of 2007 was filed by the appellant for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.07.2002 and for consequential relief. 2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, are as follows: 2.1. The suit property belongs to the defendant. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 10.07.2002 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,400/- and on the date of sale agreement, the defendant re...
Abdul Sukkur and Others Vs. S.M. Santhanapeer and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to reverse and set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.94 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2005, dated 13.8.2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submit before this Court that the main suit itself was disposed of by the trial Court and hence, the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
B. Venkatu Vs. S. Jayaraj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Principal District Munsif(Rent Controller), Dindigul to pass an order in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2006 on his file, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct the Principal District Munsif(Rent Controller), Dindigul to pass an order in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2006 on his file, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, the above R.C.O.P has been filed by the Petitioner/Landlord against the respondent/tenant for delivery of possession. The said R.C.O.P has been pending for a long time from 2006 itself. The trial Court has adjourned the said case from time to time for one reason or other. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that I.A.No....
S. Aruna Devi Vs. The Director of School Education and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Graduate Assistant in the Tamil Subject in the M.B.C.category with in the stipulated period which this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner already appointed during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. Recording the said submission, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »