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. Shanmugam and Another Vs. A. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.563 of 2015 in O.S.No.234 of 2008 dated 20.01.2016 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.563 of 2015 in I.A.No.1029 of 2013 in O.S.No.234 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, the defendants 2 and 4 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.234 of 2008 for partition. 3. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree, allotting one-fifth share to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.234 of 2008, the plaintiff filed her final decree application in I.A.No.1029 of 2013. In the said final decree application, the defendants 2 and 4 filed an application in I.A.No.563 of 2015 under Order 26 Rule 10 A and 10 B of the Civil Procedure Code to appoint an Advoc...
The Manager, Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Banu and Othe ...
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 02.03.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, and to allow this appeal.) 1. Challenging the Award passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2009, dated 02.03.2010, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 2. It is a case of fatal accident occurred on 15.12.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., near south side of Seethakathi Arch at Keelakarai-Ramnad main road. The legal heirs of the deceased Rajagani filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances granted Rs.7,33,000/- as total compensation. The appellant pr...
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.20081 of 2007 dated 04.06.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. In W.P.No.20081 of 2007, the second respondent has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the father of the petitioner, Mr.C.Krishnamurthy and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the mother of the petitioner, Mrs.K.Chitra. 2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 04.06.2012 made in W.P.No.20081 of 2007, by which, the writ court, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.29.26 Lakhs (Rs.22 lakhs compensation and Rs.7.26 lakhs towards interest), to the second respondent, for the death of his parents, who met with a fatal accident on 12.10.2005. 3. Facts leading to the appeal are that the second respondent/petitioner, a minor, aged about 14 years, lost his parents on 12.10.2005, due to sudden fall of a tree on the Maruti Car, ...
K. Sundaram Vs. Pattagasalaipathi Sriman Narayanasamicoil and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.40 of 2008, dated 29.11.2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 2001, dated 29.02.2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.) Common Judgment 1. All the three appeals are filed by defendants 3 and 9 in the suit. In Second Appeal (MD) No.459 of 2013, the defendants 3 and 9 in the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2001 are the appellants. In S.A.(MD) No.460 of 2013, the third defendant is the appellant and S.A.(MD) No.461 of 2013, the 9th defendant is the appellant. 2. The first respondent in all the appeals is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2001. The plaintiff filed the suit before the Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering...
U. Sethulakshmi and Others Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer in all petitions: Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker in any of the Anganwadi Centres situated in Arupukottai, Virudhunager District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011 respectively within the stipulated period which this Court may deem fit and proper.) Common Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the first respondent to promote these petitioners to the post of Anganwadi Worker in any of the Anganwadi Centres situated in Arupukottai, Virudhunager District, on the basis of their representation, dated 27.01.2011 respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the p...
M/s. Veesons Energy Systems Pvt., Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in the impugned notice dated 04.08.2015 and to quash the same, being in derogation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the classification of NPA being contrary to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, arbitrary exercise and failure to consider Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) in terms of the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, by forbearing the respondents from in any manner proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act pending reference before BIFR registered in Case No.129 of 2015.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The Writ Petitioner is an industrial machinery manufacturing company. It seeks to challenge the validity of the notice issued by the respondents under Sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, referr...
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Vs. Anishfa ...
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 award of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Five Thousand only)passed in M.C.O.P.No.659 of 2007, dated 20.08.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court(FTC.II), Tirunelveli.) 1. It is a tragic accident took place on 05.02.2007, at about 8.20 a.m., at Nanguneri Vagaikulam, opposite to Pannirupudu Iyyan College. It is a case of direct head on collision between the bus belongs to Transport Corporation and the insured Omni-bus with the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. In the tragic accident, nine persons died on the spot and fourteen persons grievously injured. Batch of claim petitions were filed by the respective claimants and the heirs of the deceased. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that some of the cases were settled before the Lok Adalat, before the Court below and the compensation amounts were settled to ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (VPM DV ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, amended by M.V. (Amendment) Act 1994 against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Mayiladuthurai.) 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Mayiladuthurai. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- On 02.04.1996, the Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-39-D-1177 Eicher came towards Ulundurpet from Kallakurichi and the said vehicle was driven by the deceased i.e., son of the first respondent herein and brother of respondents 2 to 5 herein. When the said vehicle was coming near Ulundurpet at about 5.20 a.m., the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-0139 belonging to the appellant herein was coming from the opposite direction and h...
Periasamy Gounder and Others Vs. Arassapa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and Decree dated 22.10.2007 made in A.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge at Gobichettipalayam, concurring the Judgment and decree dated 20.07.2006 in O.S.No.174 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif at Gobichettipalayam and allow the second appeal.) 1. Impugning the Judgement and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, concurring with the Judgement and decree dated 20.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.174 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif at Gobichettipalayam, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal. 2. The suit has been laid for permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The first item of the suit properties was allotted to the plaintiff in the partition effected between the plaintiff and the defendants on 26.06.1974 and the...
The Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Rep.by its Director General ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.01.2010 made in A.S.No.186 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, partially modifying the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.1609 of 2004 on the file the Principal District Munsif, Madurai.) 1. The defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1609 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1609 of 2004 for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the right of passage of 20 feet road, more fully, described in the ' B ' Schedule property for her ingress and egress to the property described in the ' A' Schedule. The title to the property which is described as ' A' Schedule is not in dispute. However, the plaintiff claimed that she has got a right to use the said 20 feet road to have access to 'A' Schedule property...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »