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.
Madasamy Vs. Sate Represented by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the fine imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.177 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, by the Judgment dated 31.01.2013.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.177/2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 342, 376 and 302 of I.P.C. against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 31.01.2013 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default further undergo simple imprisonment for one year and convicted, and undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and is convicted and undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The set off was allowed under Section 428...
T.V. Ravi Vs. B.R. Mohan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 made in A.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014 made in O.S.No.358 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.) 1. The appellant is the 3rd defendant in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The 1st respondent herein as the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration to declare his easementary right over the suit schedule cart track and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right of enjoyment of such easementary right. 2. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows: He purchased the suit A-Schedule property by way of three sale deeds along with the right to use the cart track shown as B-Schedule from his vendors, who in turn, got such easementary right from the defendant through an agreement dated 07.03.2005. In all the three sale deeds, t...
M. Karuppiah Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(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.509 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Trichy, dated 03.04.2013.) Judgment: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed on account of an accident took place on 17.10.2002 at about 04.15 p.m. near Nagar Branch Road on Lalgudi Trichy road. It is a head on collusion between a car and Transport Corporation bus. The claimant who was travelling in the bus got injured and filed application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichirappalli. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- for the claimant and the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal challenging the award on the ground that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is less. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that ...
Sethuraman @ Ramanathan Vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 17.12.2013, made in Spl.S.C.No.108 of 2001, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special S.C.No.108 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 363, 376 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By judgment dated 17.12.2013, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and acquitted him from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 363 IPC and to und...
M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Through its Divisional Manage ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 made in MCOP Nos.125, 126 and 124 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.) Common Judgment 1. These are the cases of injury caused due to the accident took place on 04.04.2009 about 10.45 a.m near TPK Road near Nithila Hospital, Madurai. The victims/claimants filed applications in MCOP Nos.125, 126 and 124 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, awarded compensation of Rs.98,000/-, Rs.12,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively. Challenging the Awards, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeals, on the sole ground that the driver who was driving the offending vehicle insured with them, did not possess any licence at all or it is a case of no licence and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated t...
D. Sunder Singh Vs. Justin George Kumar 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 direct the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai to number the original suit in C.F.No.4475 of 2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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....
Karuppaiah and Another Vs. Pitchai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decreemade in A.S.No.90 of 2008 dated 11.01.2011on the file of Sub-Court, Sivaganga, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.83 of 2004 dated 05.08.2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi. Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, setting aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.93 of 2008 dated 11.01.2011on the file of Sub-Court, Sivaganga, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.87 of 2004 dated 05.08.2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi.) Common Judgment: 1. The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.83 of 2004 and in O.S.No.87 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ilayangudi, are the appellants before this Court. 2. The appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2004 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction restraining the re...
S. Karthi Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(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.512 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Trichy, dated 03.04.2013.) Judgment: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed on account of an accident took place on 17.10.2002 at about 04.15 p.m. near Nagar Branch Road on Lalgudi Trichy road. It is a head on collusion between a car and Transport Corporation bus. The claimant, who was travelling in the bus, got injured and filed application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichirappalli. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- for the claimant and the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal challenging the award on the ground that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is less. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant contended tha...
M. Sivakumar Vs. Indian Bank, through its Branch Manager, South Masi S ...
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 call for the records from the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2011 dated 23.6.2016 and allow the revision with costs.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to call for the records from the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2011 dated 23.6.2016 and allow the revision with costs. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2011 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai. The respondent did not file the written statement and an exparte decree was passed in the said suit on 30.4.2012. Thereafter E.P.No.188 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioner for execution of the decree in the main suit. In the said circumstances, on 30.9.2016, the respondent filed a petition in I.A.No.211 of 2014 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C to set aside...
Marudayee Vs. Jones Anitharani and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) 1. It is a case of an injury caused on account of an accident took place on 24.12.2006 at about 02.30 p.m. near Trichy-Madurai main road. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that at the time of trial, the expired Insurance Policy was produced before the Tribunal, though the current Insurance Policy was very much available with the owner of the vehicle. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that in view of this mistake committed by the parties, the Tribunal had made to proceed erroneously based on the Insurance Policy which was expired. 4. Hence, it was purely a mistake committed by the parties and this fact, regarding the production of policy, was not disputed by the respective Counsel...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »