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.
M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. M/s. Trichy Construct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Order, dated 20.03.2015 made in O.P.No.427 of 2011.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.03.2015 in O.P.No.427 of 2011, dismissing the O.P, by confirming the Arbitration Award. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The claimant is a registered partnership firm of Civil Engineers and contractors and as owner of tankers, it is also engaged in the activity of hiring of tankers for transport of effluent water, crude oil etc. Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., called for tender for transportation of crude oil by road by tankers from various locations. The claimant participated in the tender and contract was awarded to it. Both the claimant and ONGC entered into contract on 09.08.2006 for transportation of crude oil for a period of two years from 17.07.2006. In November ...
D. Sounder Rajan Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Air India Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings GDS/MAA/06-01/PERS/732 dated 07.10.2015 and charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings GDS/MAA/06-01/PERS/809 dated 30.10.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to confer all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 07.10.2015 and the consequential charge memo dated 30.10.2015 issued by the second respondent as without jurisdiction. 2. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the present writ petition which are germane and necessary are as follows:- (i) The petitioner joined as Sepoy in Army Service Cops (Motor Transport) in Army in the year 1978 and after serving five years, he was relieved on medical ground. Thereafter, the petitioner joined as Security Guard in Vigilance an...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Thanjavur town ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 25/08/2011 made in MCOP Nos.273 and 274 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.) Judgment: S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 25/08/2011 made in MCOP Nos.273 and 274 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur. 2. Both the Appeals are relating to the cases of injury caused due to the accident took place on 05.01.2010 at 07.00 p.m near Neduvasal-Aavanam road. The injured victims filed applications in MCOP Nos.273 and 274 of 2010, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circu...
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelve ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.789 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 06.02.2006.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.789 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 06.02.2006. 2. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 06.04.2002 at 22.00 hours near Manakavalam Pillai Nagar, Palayamkottai. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.789 of 2002, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.40,000/- 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 to have directed the appellant to pay the c...
Vasuthevan Vs. The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 26.10.2013 along with arrears of salary which is due and payable to the petitioner with interest for such delayed payment by considering the petitioners representation dated 23.09.2016 and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in the post of shop salesman.) 1. This is a writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the third respondent to pay Subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension from 26.10.2013. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition:- The petitioner was appointed as a salesman by the third respondent and he is working at TASMAC Shop No.7553, Sivagangai Town. The third respondent conducted monthly audit and found out that there was a deficit of Rs.55,49,920/-. Thereafter, the third respondent...
M/s. K.V.T. Builders Private Limited and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
Common Order: 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2015. The scheme of amalgamation (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure 4 to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.174 of 2016 is the 1st transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.175 of 2016 is the 2nd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.176 of 2016 is the 3rd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.177 of 2016 is the 4th transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.178 of 2016 is the 5th transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.179 of 2016 is the 6th transferor transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.186 of 2016 is the 13transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.187 of 2016 is the 14transferor company; and the petitioner in C.P.No.188 of 2016 is the transferee company.company; the petitioner in C.P.No.180 of 2016 is the 7th transferor company t...
Ambadi Holdings Private Limited, Tamil Nadu represented by its Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation.) Common Order: 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for seeking a sanction of the scheme of amalgamation concerning Ambadi Holdings Private Limited (in short transferor company) and Murugappa Holdings Limited (in short transferee company), with effect from 01.01.2016. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure '5' to the respective petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.264 of 2016 is the transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.265 of 2016 is the transferee company. 2.1. I may only note that hereon collectively, the transferor and transferee companies will be referred to as petitioners. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there is no secured creditor as far as the petitioners are concerned. The certif...
Mahalingam Vs. State, Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for records pertaining to the order, dated 29.09.2016, made in C.M.P.No.524 of 2015, in C.C.No.109 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi, and to set aside the same.) 1. The Revision Petitioner/Accused has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, being dissatisfied with the Order/Judgement, dated 29.09.2016, made in C.M.P.No.524 of 2015, in C.C.No.109 of 2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi/trial Court, while passing the impugned Order, dated 29.09.2016, in C.M.P.No.524 of 2015, in C.C.No.109 of 2014, at Para No.6, had among other things observed that, "this Court opines that the offence committed by the Petitioner/Accused, viz., 'Breach of Trust', comes under the single act/proceedings and furthermore, in the present case, 'Final Report'...
Rajakumar Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP.No.1089 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 28/04/2005.) 1. It is a case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 26.04.2004 about 05.20 p.m on Tirunelveli Tuticorin main road near Vasavappapuram and the injured was aged 36 years at the time of accident and was working as a Computer Programmer. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.1089 of 2004, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal, by considering the nature of injury and the evidences on record, awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. The appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the award amount fixed by the Tribunal is not just and proper and the Tribunal failed to co...
Ashokan (died) and Another Vs. The Managing Director, Maruthupandiar T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act against the judgment and award dated 06.05.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.83/09 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) at Pudukottai (which was presented before the District Judge, Pudukkottai, on 29.08.1997, taken on file as MCOP.No.456/97 and after transfer to the court of CJM, renumbered as MCOP No.83/99 for enhancement of compensation.) J. Nisha Banu, J. 1. The deceased / first appellant, namely, Ashokan was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai. 2. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred and during the pendency of the same, the claimant-appellant died, whereupon, his parents/legal heirs were brought on record as appellants 2 and 3 and now, they contest this appeal. 3. The case of the appellants is as follows:- T...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »