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.
Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal Vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Culture Th ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Notice of Result dated 26.08.2015 in advertisement bearing Advt. No. 7/2010 Item No.3 vide Reference No.F.1/44/2010-R-IV published on 10.4.2010 for recruitment of 24 Posts of Deputy Superintending Archaeologists in the Archaeological Survey India Ministry of Culture and quash the same as illegal and subsequently direct them to conduct recruitment afresh by following reservation policy.) S. Nagamuthu,J. 1. The petitioner is a registered Regional Political Party known as Anaithindiya Samuthaya Makkal Katchi. It is represented by Mr.K.V.Rajappa. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation challenging the employment notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Advertisement No.7/2010 (Item No.3) for recruiting 24 candidates for the post of Deputy Superintending Archaeologists in Archaeological Survey In...
P.A. Abhinand Vs. P.R. Nataraja Krishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add the reliefs, after the prayer.) 1. This application is filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint by introducing an additional prayer and for payment of additional court fees. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: (a) The suit was originally filed for a declaration declaring that the assessment of property tax made in favour of the first defendant, by defendants 6 and 7 as null and void and consequently to direct the defendants 6 and 7 to effect transfer of the property tax assessment in the name of the plaintiff and for a direction to defendants 4 and 5 to issue patta in favour of the plaintiff, with respect to the suit property etc. (b) The suit property originally belonged to the joint family, man...
T. Rajendran Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB/Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer:This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 12.10.2015 in C.C.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Court and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 12.10.2015 in C.C.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Court and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 2. The facts of the case: i) The General Manager and the Chief Vigilance Officer, Canara Bank preferred a complaint to the 1st respondent on 24.09.2010 that A-3, Nazeer Ahamed, and A-4, Fathima Rizwana are partners of A-1, Afrina Steel Rolling Mills and A-2, Basheer and Company had dealings with the Kilpauk Branch of Canara Bank since 2007 and availed loan facilities by collateral mortgage on certain land property which were not properly valued and the accounts became irregular and overdue and classified ...
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gowsaly ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award made in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.) 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2009, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. 2. It is a case of grievous injury and the claimant filed the application for compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,53,425/- as total compensation. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant is that the lorry insured with the first respondent dashed with the Ambassador Car in which the respondent / claimant was travelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal...
S.R. Ramanathan Vs. Muthammal alias Kasthuri
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2002 of A.S.No.280 of 2001, passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Tirunelveli reversing and confirming the judgement and decree dated 25.11.1999 of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi made in O.S.No.28 of 1998.)1. The Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.280 of 2001 on 20.09.2002 reversing the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi made in O.S.No.28 of 1998.2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 1998. The respondent is the defendant in the said suit. Appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum being the balance sale consideration and Rs.5,200/- being the amounts borrowed by the respondent for payment of stamp duty and registration charges. The appellant is...
M/s. P and R Infraprojects Ltd., Through Its Director Paveijeet Singh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayers: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of OS Rules under Section 9(II)(a)(d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to pass an order of Interim Injunction to restrain the Respondent from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner vide Bank Guarantees issued by Punjab National Bank Larg Corporate Branch RK Road NR Cheema Chowk Ludhiana 141 003 and consequently direct the respondent to not to invoke the clauses 4.2. and 5.0 of SCT 1371(2) of the Contract Agreement dated 09.07.2010. Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of OS Rules read with Section 9(II)(a)(d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking to vacate the order of interim injunction dated 01.04.2015 and consequently dismiss O.A.No.383 of 2015.) Common Order: 1. To be noted O.A.No.383 of 2015 has been filed by an entity known as P and R Infra Projects Limited (in short "PRIPL"). By virtue of the said application, the following relief is...
Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.11.2013 made in Tha.Pa.No.S1/1218/2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to release the document presented by the petitioner on 09.04.2010 without insisting for payment of any additional stamp duty or penalty.) Challenging the notice issued by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein, dated 25.11.2013 directing the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry pertaining to the proceedings for deficit stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The pe...
M. Satheeshkumar Vs. S. Sekar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.90 of 2010 dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.106 of 2007 dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.) 1. The Defendant in the suit who suffered a decree before the Courts below, is the appellant before this Court. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant in any way obstructing or interfering with the usage and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff. 3. The suit property has been described as "Cart Track" having a width of 15 feet and length of 225 feet running South East to North West in the suit Survey No.130/6 in Manalur Village, Dindigul District. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out f...
Sundar Iyer Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vepe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
(Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.169/2016 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team I, Vepery, Chennai 600 007 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Cr. No.169/2016 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team I, Vepery, Chennai 600 007 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. On the complaint dated 04.02.2015 given by one Chandramouli (de facto complainant/second respondent herein), the first respondent police registered a case on 24.06.2016 in Cr. No.169 of 20...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., TKM Complex 1st Floor, Vellore Vs. Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2016
1. C.M.A.No.1903 of 2015 is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 14.11.2014, made in O.P.No.6157 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. C.M.A.No.499 of 2016 is filed by the claimants against the award dated dated 14.11.2014, made in O.P.No.6157 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 3. On 17.10.2012 at about 16.30 hrs., while the deceased was crossing MMDA colony main road, Arumbakkam, Chennai, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-25-B-1969 proceeding from South to North belonging to the 7th respondent College and insured with the appellant Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, a case registered against the driver of the bus in Cr.No.518/AS2/2012, on the file of the K4 Anna Nagar Traffic Investigation Police Station, Che...