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.
National Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam Vs. K Arumugam and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 07/04/2005 passed in MACOP.No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Karur.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07/04/2005 passed in MACOP.No.85 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Karur. 2. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 15.02.2003 at 7.00 p.m in Veppampalayam Bus stop near Vaikkal palam, Karur. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.85 of 2003, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Karur, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.20,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. The appellant insurance company filed the present appeal challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
This application has been filed by the Plaintiff in the above said suit, seeking permission to mark the documents, namely, (1) To and Fro E-Tickets (Chennai to Varnasi), dated 10.10.2009 and 19.10.2009, (2) Photographs taken in Varnasi and (3) Photographs of house property. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it had been stated that the Applicant had filed the above suit, seeking declaration of the settlement deed, dated 16.10.2009, registered as Document No.1667 of 2009, executed in favour of the Respondent/ Defendant as null and void and for other reliefs. It had been further stated that the Applicant had examined himself as PW.1 and had also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P39 during the trial. After his cross examination, the evidence was closed and the matter is to be posted for further evidence. It had been further stated that in paragraph 39 of the Plaint, the Applicant had stated that the said settlement deed had been executed when he was on a pilgrimage tour to Varnas...
National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.1368 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Tirunelveli.) 1. The appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present C.M.A.No.1393 of 2008, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1368 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli. 2. The facts in nutshell is that the accident took place at about 01.15 a.m. on 02.09.2004 at Tiruchendur - Tuticorin Road near Arumuganeri Check Post and it is a case of injury. The claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.1368 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli, and considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal granted Rs.95,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. and costs. 3. The learned co...
S. Parvathy Vs. Principal Accountant General Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
1. The petitioner is the second wife of Late. Sriramulu, who retired as Teacher from Thenmudiyanur Government Elementary School, Thiruvannamalai District on 01.11.1978. It is the contention of the petitioner that the deceased Sriramulu married her as his second wife in the year 1961 and such marriage was solemnised with the consent of the first wife namely Krishnaveni. Out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased, 2 sons and 2 daughters have born. As far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, after retirement, the said Sriramulu was in receipt of pension at the rate of Rs.120/- per month. On 25.09.2009, the first wife Krishnaveni died. On 25.12.2008, the said Sriramulu died and prior to his death, he was in receipt of pension at the rate of Rs.4,240/-. On his death, the Directorate of Pension issued a cheque dated 03.09.2009 for Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards the lumpsum grant under the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioner's Family Security Fund Scheme. However, fami...
Marikani @ Dhanasekaran Vs. Ramalakshmi @ Kavitha
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 13(1), (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the Fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar in HMCMA.No.4 of 2008 dated 26.09.2008 in confirming the Fair and decreetal Order passed by the Sub Court, Virudhunagar in HMOP.No.50 of 2003 dated 24.10.2007.) Judgment: S.M. Subramaniam, J. On 14.11.2016, there was no representation for the appellant and therefore, Registry was directed to list the appeal on 15.11.2016 under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs....
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Anguvilas Building ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dt:13/12/2012 made in MCOP No.291/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13/12/2012 made in MCOP No.291/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 2. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 08.08.2011 at 09.00 p.m near Spia Traders at Puthankudieruppu. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.291 of 2011, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.1,62,948/- 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 ...
National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 09/11/2006 and made in MCOP.NO.290/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge Srivilliputhur.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09/11/2006 and made in MCOP.No.290/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge Srivilliputhur. 2. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 19.10.2005 at 09.45 hours near Rajapalayam-Tenkasi main road. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.290 of 2005, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.2,24000/- 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 Tribunal ought not...
Aravinthan Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Kumbakona ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records in S.C.No.88 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District and set aside the Judgment dated 09.05.2008 and acquit the appellant of the charges leveled against him.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.88 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 of I.P.C (2 counts) against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The trial Court by Judgment dated 09.05.2008 convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo Life Imprisonment for each counts under Section 302 of I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in each counts, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years in each counts. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The set off was allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said convicti...
V. Rajavel Vs. Thangamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Sankari reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008 passed in O.S.No.263 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Sankari(O.S.No.78 of 2003- Sub Court, Sankari). 1. Challenge in this Second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Sankari, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008 passed in O.S.No.263 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari(O.S.No.78 of 2003- Sub Court, Sankari). 2. Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit property belonged to the defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement date...
Cadila Healthcare Limited, Rep. by Deputy General Manager (Legal) Mehu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendant for the reliefs, stated therein.) 1. The plaintiff, is a well known pharmaceutical company in India, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing various pharmaceutical, medicinal and health related products. The plaintiff, at present, is ranked as fifth largest company, according to Retail Market Survey Report of the Organizational Research Group. The plaintiff, had applied for the registration of the Trade Mark PANTODAC in Application No.723200 on 30.10.1996 and also advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No.9999 Mega 3, dated 14.10.2003. According to the plaintiff, their gross sales turnover for the year ended 31.03.2010 was in excess of Rs.3,600 crores. 2. It is the furt...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »