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.
Islamic Education and Cultural Trust, (Rajagiri and Pandaravadai), Rep ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the decent burial of dead bodies belonging to the members of Tawheed Jamath at Rajagiri and Pandaravadai Villages, Pappanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District without any obstruction by the respondents 5 to 7.) Order: S.Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner, which is a trust known as Islamic Educational and Cultural Trust at Rajagiri, Thanjavur District, has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the decent burial of dead bodies belonging to the members of Tawheed Jamath at Rajagiri and Pandaravadai Villages, Pappanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District, without any objections by the respondents 5 to 7. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. From the averments made before this Court, it is inferable that there is a Pallivasal known as Periya...
The Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Ramanathapuram District Central ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
(Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order made in W.A.(MD)No.250 of 2015, dated 27.04.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2014, dated 27.04.2015, declined to quash the order of the Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981, Ramanathapuram, 2nd respondent, dated 31.07.2014, wherein, the 2nd respondent, while taking note of the fact that the first respondent had been in continuous service for more than 480 days for a period of 24 calender months from 04.09.1999, till the date of submitting his application on 27.12.2000, has given a specific finding that the 1st respondent is entitled to the benefit under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of Workmen) Act, 1981. Considering the submissions and the material on record, vide order made in W.A.(MD)No.250 ...
Dr.P. Kalidas, Proprietor Chennai Vs. V.Arun Vijay @ Arunkumar and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- a) directing the 1st Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) towards the financial loss and mental agony. b) granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from releasing the film Manja Velu till the payment of damages to the Plaintiff. c) directing the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff, a Medical Surgeon is the distributor and producer of films and has been in the film industry for 15 years. He had produced a Tamil Film 'Thunechal', in which the 1st Defendant, who was an Actor, had acted as the Hero and his remuneration was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs. At the time of producing the film in the year 2005, the Plaintiff had claimed that the 1st Defendant had consecu...
S.M. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. The General Manager Southern Railway, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in its impugned proceedings in No.T/W.148/Central/16/2015 dated 04.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to confirm the Tender of the petitioner.) Challenging the letter of acceptance issued by the second respondent dated 04.08.2016 in favour of the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mrs.J.Maria Roseline, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manohar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- The petitioner is a registered class-I contractor with Public Works Department and also doing civil contract works for the Southern Railways, Tiruchirappalli from the year 1990. The second respondent invited sealed tenders for various works vide tender notification dated 27.01.2...
K. Murugesan Pillai (Died) and Others Vs. M. Sundarapandi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: [Appellants 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide order dted 20.04.2012 and made in M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 in S.A.(MD)No.1105 of 2008] Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, dated 17.09.2005 in A.S.No.183 of 2000, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Subordinate Court, Palani, dated 20.09.2000 in O.S.No.75 of 1996.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.75 of 1996 (Originally O.S.No.1020 of 1993) on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2.The plaintiff / appellant has filed the suit in O.S.No.75 of 1996 against the respondents herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property which is a small piece of land measuring 19 feet x 22 feet with a residential building. 3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plai...
R. Muthulakshmi (minor), Represented by mother and next friend R. Bhag ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1663 of 1998 dated 11.02.2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai.) Judgment: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.1663 of 1998 dated 11.02.2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai. 2. It is a case of injury caused due to the accident that took place on 22.10.1997 at about 8.30 a.m on Madurai Thirumangalam Main road. When the claimant/appellant going as a pillion rider in TVS 50 bearing Registration No.TCU 5088, the Ambassador car, bearing Registration No.TN 59/9898 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the TVS 50, due to which, the claimant thrown away from TVS 50 and sustained grievous injury including compound fracture on the left leg. The injured/victim, represented by her mother, filed a claim p...
M/s. Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., Meenakshi Plaza, Madurai Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.2222 of 2014 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai, and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.) 1. The appellant/second respondent has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.2222 of 2014 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai. 2. It is a case of the fatal accident. The accident took place on 29.08.2014 at about 3.00 p.m., in Theni to Madurai main road and the legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai and the Tribunal passed an award granting compensation of Rs.11,80,000/-. 3. Challenging the award, the appellant/second respondent has filed the present appeal on the ground...
K. Karthikaimani Vs. P. zaheer Hussain and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and Judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.241 of 2004, dated 07/06/2006 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam and to allow this appeal for enhancement with costs throughout.) When the Civil Miscellaneous petition came up for hearing on 16.11.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is directed to be listed on 17.11.2016, under the caption for dismissal . Even today, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs....
Sakaravarthi Vs. Chinnathambi (deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.769 of 2013 in O.S.No.619 of 2009 dated 20.11.2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Sankarapuram.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.769 of 2013 in O.S.No.619 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Sankarapuram, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Though notices were served on the respondents 3 and 4 and their names have been printed in the cause list, none appeared for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed a memo stating that the respondents 1 and 2 had died on 15.01.2010 and 04.02.2015 respectively, leaving behind the respondents 3 and 4 as their legal representatives. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.619 of 2009 for declaration and recovery of possession. 5. Since the plaintiff failed to appear before the trial Court, the suit was di...
M. Palaniappan and Another Vs. Nachimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 made in A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006 made in O.S.No.491 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 made in A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the Judgement and decree dated 13.09.2006 made in O.S.No.491 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal. 2. The suit has been laid for specific performance. 3. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows: The suit properties belonged to the first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a written sale agreement on 15.06.1986, whereby, the first defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a total sum of...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »