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.
Jayaraman and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 03.09.2009 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.435 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.) 1. It is a case of death of the brother of the first appellant and the paternal uncle of the appellants 2 to 4, aged about 60 years, in the accident. According to the first appellant, on 3.3.2007, at about 11.20 P.M., while his brother Mr.Arumugam, being a coolie, was walking on the left side of the Vettavalam main road on the stretch Tiruvannamalai-Villupuram road, near Moorthy medical shop, a bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 2614 belonging to the respondent Corporation coming in the opposite direction, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his brother, thereby he sustained multiple and grievous injuries and despite the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Since...
Vijay @ Raja @ Vijilas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No.22/2016, dated 04.05.2016, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu, namely Vijay @ Raja @ Vijilas, S/o.Edward Jesaiah @ Jesaiah Edward @ Jesaiah @ Edward, aged about 45 years, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The petitioner is the detenu viz., Vijay @ Raja @ Vijilas, S/o.Edward Jesaiah @ Jesaiah Edward @ Jesaiah @ Edward, aged about 45 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 04.05.2016, under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Goonda . Challenging the same, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by it's Divisional Man ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.136 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.) Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.137 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.138 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.) Common Judgment 1. It is a case of injury occurred on 04.11.1995 at about 09.45 p.m. near Mysore K.R.Nagar road and the injured persons filed applications respectively claiming compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palani and the Tribunal, considering the ...
The Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Vs ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Suo motu Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any order or direction in the nature of Writ directing the Respondents to regulate the bus fare in all kinds of buses operated by the Omni private bus owners throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.) 1. This is a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation, initiated by this court based on a News Report in "Dinamani", a Tamil Daily, that the Tamil Nadu Contract Carriage Owners' Association had enhanced the individual fares for the passengers to travel in the contract carriages operated within the State of Tamil Nadu. The report further indicated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had instructed these operators to announce the individual fares for the passengers to travel in their contract carriages. The said report also stated that since different fares were collected by the operator, according to their whims and fancies, in order to maintain uniformity and consiste...
Muruganandham @ Murugan Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 29.10.2012, made in S.C.No.59 of 2012, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.59 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Vinoth. Even before the trial, the second accused died. Thus, the appellant/first accused alone faced the trial. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the appellant/A1 under Sections 302, 397 and 201 IPC respectively. By judgment dated 29.10.2012, the trial Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 398 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 398 IPC. He was acquitted from the char...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Rama ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004, dated 26.04.2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.) (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2003,dated 26.10.2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Sivagangai.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitions for compensation filed by the claimants revolve around in respect of the accident that took place on 14.01.2002 at 05.45 a.m. near Kondamari bridge, Madurai - Dindigul Main Road and as such, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as well as the Cross Objection are disposed of by this common judgment. C.M.A(MD)No.570 of 2006: 2. The appellant-Transport Corporation is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Madura...
Baskaran Vs. A. Gunasekaran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005, made in A.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 05.07.2002, made in O.S.No.187 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.) 1.This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005, made in A.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 05.07.2002, made in O.S.No.187 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur. 2. The first appellant is the second defendant and the appellants 2 to 4 and the first appellant are the legal heirs of the first defendant. The appellants, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court, filed this second appeal. The respondent is the third plaintiff. 3. Facts of the case:- (i) The respondent along with his fa...
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.07.2015 made in W.P.(MD) No.18058 of 2014.) Judgment: M.Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The respondents in W.P.(MD)No.18058 of 2014 are the appellants. Aggrieved by the impugned final order dated 27.07.2015 passed in the said writ petition in and by which the appellants herein were directed to promote the respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted subject to the condition that there is no legal impediment to do the same, the appellants have filed this Writ Appeal. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition briefly narrated there as follows: The respondent/writ petitioner was recruited as the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) in the year 1987 and got his promotion as the Inspector of Police and at present serving as the Inspector of Police (Protection of Civil Rights), Ooty, Nilgiris District. It ...
M. Amul Mary Vs. The Principal Accountant General, (A and E) Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,280/- towards death gratuity and Rs.27526/- towards final settlement of the General Provident Fund Account of petitioner deceased husband who died while on active service on 02.08.2000 and to pay interest in accordance with law.) 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directingrespondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,280/- towards death gratuity and Rs.27,526/- towards final settlement of the General Provident Fund Account of petitioner deceased husband, who died while on active service on 02.08.2000 and to pay interest in accordance with law. 2. As per direction of this Court, the third respondent, namely, the Medical Officer,Government Hospital, Balarengapuram,Madurai, is present before this Court and produced records, which shows that the said service benefits were sett...
Rajammal Vs. A.P. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2014 made in A.S.No.64 of 2012 on the file of the learned First Additional District Court, Salem reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 made in O.S.No.127 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Sankari.) 1. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property belongs to the defendant. The defendant had obtained loan for her family expenses and in order to repay the said loan, she decided to sell the properties in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 06.08.2009 by fixing the total sale consideration as Rs.2,00,000/-. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance. For payment of the balance sum, nine months time was agreed between the parties. When the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part o...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »