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.
Bakkiya Lakshmi and Another Vs. Ram Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in A.S.No.22 of 2014 dated 28.01.2016, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, in O.S.No.698 of 1994 dated 07.07.2014.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance are the appellants. Their case is as follows: 2. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 16.12.1992, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance on the same day. For payment of the balance sale consideration and for execution of the sale deed, the time limit was fixed till 16.11.1993. However, the time was extended further by an agreement dated 04.11.1993 upto 16.10.1994. Though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendant has not come forwar...
Rengasamy Reddiyar Vs. Velliyan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2003 made in A.S.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2000, made in O.S.No.772 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2003 made in A.S.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2000, made in O.S.No.772 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. The respondent is the defendant. 3. Facts of the case:- (i) The appellant filed suit in O.S.No.772 of 1998, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the...
The Managing Director, M/s. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order passed in MCOP.No.3 of 2009 dated 19.10.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai.) Judgment: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been against the the order dated 19.10.2002 passed in MCOP.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai. 2. It is a case of injury caused due to the accident that took place on 17.10.2008 at about 03.45 a.m at Industrial Training Institute, Guindy, Chennai. The injured/victim filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.1,18,500/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellant Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal, challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground tha...
S. Balasubramanian Vs. The Director General of Police and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(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 Ma/A-776/2009 Na.No.A1(2)/12913/2009 dated 30.07.2009 on the file of Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent No.2 to restore promotion of petitioner to the post of Head Constable with effect from 09.06.2008 with retrospective effect with all monetary benefits with arrears in the revised scale within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the second respondent, by which, the promotion of the petitioner was postponed by one year. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for f...
Mahendran and Others Vs. Bhupinder Singh and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decretal order dated 23.08.2013 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.161, 162 and 268 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. Three claimants have separately filed three civil miscellaneous appeals, assailing the impugned common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.Nos.161, 162 and 268 of 2011 dated 23.8.2013 awarding a sum of Rs.1,08,500/-, Rs.70,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively, for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. In all these appeals, it is not in dispute that the second respondent insurance company has not questioned the quantum or liability. Therefore, it is an admitted case of both sides that the accident took place on 27.6.2009 at about 13.00 hours, when all the three injured claimants, being pedestrian...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the District Collector, Ramanatha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 in LA.CM.A.No.25/2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 in LA.CM.A.No.25/2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi. 2. The case of the petitioners is that lands in S.No.213/4B1, admeasuring to an extent of 3.38 acres, in Senkottaipatti Village, Peraiyur Group, Kamuthi Taluk was acquired for the purpose of providing housesites to Adi-dravidar families. The date of publication of the substance of the 4(1) Notification was dated 27.01.1993 and the date of service of notice to the land owner in Form 3A was dated 09.02.1993. It is the further case of the petitioners that for fixation of land value, the Acquisition Officer had taken the sample registration done between 31.12.1982 and 30.12.1992 and 171 sales made during the afore-said peri...
Susila Vs. Mani @ S.Subramanian
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2016 on the file of the learned Family Judge, Trichy and transfer the same to the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.) 1. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2016 was disposed of by the ex-parte order dated 15.03.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the above said facts and accordingly, the present transfer miscellaneous petition as on today is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
M/s. Chirakkal Brothers Rep. by its Proprietor N.C. Syed Ali Vs. The S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.7726/R5/2003 dated 22.06.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to convey the Plot concerned and act on the basis of order of allotment dated 05.04.1994.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.7726/R5/2003 dated 22.06.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to convey the Plot concerned and act on the basis of order of allotment dated 05.04.1994. 2.1. The short facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is as follows: The petitioner is a proprietary concern which is involved in the manufacturing of sheet metal fabrication for Automobiles, tractors and allied industries and also heavy structural fabrication and other aut...
Rahul Kaushik Vs. The Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner belongs to Indian Postal Service. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V.Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of Charge Memorandum No.11-02/2011-Vig.(P.11), dated 16.07.2013, were not approved by the Hon'ble Minister, a mandatory requirement under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Tribunal ought to have granted the reliefs, sought for in the Original Application. He raised further grounds that the petitioner was not supplied with additional documents; though the names of certain witnesses were mentioned in the charge memo, they were not examined; the inquiry officer, hastily short-circuited the procedure; and his report has not been authenticated by the competent authority, as per the CCS (CCA) Rules. 2. The Assistant Direct...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Jawahar Bazaar, Karur Vs Madhialagar a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.11.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.793 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Tiruchirappalli.) 1. The appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present C.M.A.(MD)No.985 of 2005, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.793 of 1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Tiruchirappalli. 2. It is a case of injury caused due to the accident that took place at about 11.00 a.m. on 15.11.1996 at Salia Mangalam, Thanjavur Nagar Main Road. The injured victim filed application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Tiruchirappalli and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded Rs.3,65,000/- towards total compensation. 3. The award pass...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »