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.
K. Karuppasamy Vs. R. Shyam Sai Sundar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order made in I.a.No.381 of 2014 in I.A.No.416 of 2010 in O.S.No.283 of 2008, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Theni and to direct the Sub-Court, Theni to hear O.S.No.283 of 2008 on merits.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order made in I.a.No.381 of 2014 in I.A.No.416 of 2010 in O.S.No.283 of 2008, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Theni and to direct the Sub-Court, Theni to hear O.S.No.283 of 2008 on merits. 2. The facts of this case are: The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Theni, for the relief of specific performance pursuant to the alleged agreement dated 29.11.2006..An exparte decree was passed in the suit on 5.11.2010 and the respondents herein filed I.A.No.416 of 2010 to set aside the exparte decree and after filing of the above said I.A., the Petitio...
M. Kulanthaivel and Others Vs. The Chairman, District Vigilance Commit ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in NM(Aa.4) 39688/2009 dated 11.03.2011 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would disclose among other things that the petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Hindu Sholaga Community', which is a Scheduled Tribe Community and a certification to that effect by the competent authority-second respondent was issued vide proceedings dated 23.02.1983. The petitioner would further claim that at the time of admitting him in the school, the status of his community was recorded as 'Hindu Sholaga Community' and on the basis of the said Community Certificate, the...
G. Sathyan Vs. B. Vasudevan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the Order, dated 22.04.2016 made in O.P.No.553 of 2011.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge, dated 22.04.2016 in O.P.No.553 of 2011 dismissing the O.P, filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by confirming the Arbitral Award passed by the second respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the appeal are as follows : (i) The appellant is the petitioner in the O.P. The appellant and the first respondent constituted a Partnership Firm by entering into a partnership deed, dated 17.03.1999. As per the deed, the appellant and the first respondent had agreed to run a Nursing Home in the name and style of "Sivasubramaniam Nursing Home". Both the appellant and the first respondent also entered into a se...
Dr.M.A. Bose Vs. Vedha Prahasam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2011, dated 18.1.2012, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2011, dated 18.1.2012, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2011 for declaration and for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner. In the aforesaid suit, I.A.No.407 of 2011 filed by the respondents herein for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein preferred C.M.A.N o.4 of 2011 before the Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai. The Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai considered Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 and allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the petiti...
Ulaganayaki and Another Vs. Nallathai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2005 made in A.S.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2004, made in O.S.No.48 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2005 made in A.S.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2004, made in O.S.No.48 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who lost in both the Courts below. The respondents are the defendants. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The first appellant/first plaintiff is the first wife of one Balasubramanian. The second appellant/second plaintiff is the son born through the first appellant and Balasubramanian. The said Balasubramanian led a w...
C. Babu Rajan Vs. The Secretary, Transport Department and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Memo No.055698/HR3/SETCTN/2016, dated 01.10.2016 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to serve as the Controller in the Control Section at the office of the fourth respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This is a case where a person who approached the Court seeking remedy seems to have been taken to task, indirectly, only on account of the fact that he has approached this Court seeking redressal. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 01.10.2016 on the file of the third respondent and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Nagercoil Vs. Murugan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 17.11.2003 made in O.P.No.1701 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli.) Common Judgment 1. It is a head on collusion between the Mahendra Van insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., and the Mini Lorry insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The unfortunate accident took place on 07.10.2001 at about 11.30 hours in Thiruchendur-Kulasekarapattinam main road. In this accident, 9 persons died and 6 persons got injured grievously. The legal heirs of the deceased as well as the injured victims filed their respective claim applications before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Tribunal passed award granting compensation to the respondents/claimants, which are challenged before this Court by the appellant Insurance Company only on the ground that 50% of the liability fixed on t...
The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur Vs. Selvam alias Selvakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 16.06.2006 passed in MCOP.No.702 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.) Judgment: 1. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 24.05.1997 about 10.30 a.m near Udaiyar Koil Village, Muniyandavar Koil on Nagapattinam-Tanjore main road. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.702 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.2,06,970/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellant insurance company filed the present appeal, challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive and therefore, the same is to be set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant opposed this appeal, ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager Vs. Saravanaraj ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 21.01.2006 made in MCOP.No.563 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub Judge), Trichy.) 1. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 18.05.2000 about 02.00 hours on Kariamangalam-Krishnagiri main road near Palakodu Bye-pass road. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.563 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.74,500/- against which, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal on the ground that 50% liability fixed on the appellant is erroneous, since the vehicle insured with the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Ltd., was wholly responsible for the accident and therefore, the appellant ought to have been exonerated from the liability in totality. 2. On reading of the find...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dharmar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 made in MCOP.No.844 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.) 1. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 22.02.2003 about 06.30 a.m on Nilakottai-Anaipatty main road. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.844 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.54,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum, against which, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal, on the ground that the injured was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle insured with them, which met with the accident in violation of the insurance policy conditions and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from the liability in totality instead...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »