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.
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. Reference may be made to the earlier order dated 01.09.2016. It is heartening to note that in pursuant to the directions issued earlier by this Court, the parties were able to implement the order and with the active participation of the officers of EPF organization as well as the Tahsildar and Revenue officials, the Management has been able to take possession of the premises. It is submitted that there is an encroachment in the property and one person said to be squatting in the property, effected temporary construction and has parked his vehicles. If the management files appropriate petition in this regard supported by proper affidavit, this Court would consider the same on the next hearing date, as to the directions to be issued in the said matter. 2. With regard to the settlement of dues to the employees Union insofar as Macneil and Magor Kilburn Company Thozhilalar Nalasangam, which is represented by its Counsel Mr.S.Saravanan is concerned, they have entered ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. D. Komala and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.941/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Poonamallee.) 1. C.M.A. No.243 of 2011 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the quantum of compensation and C.M.A. No.2142 of 2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. As both the appeals are arising out of the common award, they are taken up together for common disposal. 3. According to the claimants, on 15.12.2006 at about 21.30 hrs, while the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-T-4438 from North to South direction, a mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-AV-6395, which was driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the same, the de...
Balasubramanian Vs. Marimuthu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in A.S.No.03/2009, dated 29.09.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur in O.S.No.128 of 2003, dated 17.10.2008 and allow this Second Appeal.)The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit is also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the temporary shed put up by them in the suit property. The suit property is only an extent of 91 square meter, roughly about 2 cents, in Natham survey No.391/59 in Mettupatti Village, Sethur Town Panchayat, Rajapalayam Taluk. 3. The case of the plain...
C. Balakrishnan and Another Vs. Arulmighu Vishwanathaswamy Temple Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. 1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed by one Bava Chokkappa Mudaliar as hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Viswanathaswamy Temple in Kulakarai Village, Thiruvarur District, seeking possession, mandatory injunction and permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property. 2. The relief of declaration and mandatory injunction was granted and permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the defendant has already completed the construction on the encroached portion of the suit property and therefore the relief of permanent injunction is redundant. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 3. The aggrieved defendant, who is the appellant before this Court, challenges the Order of the Court below on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated the law relating to locus stand...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Mann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.300/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District and Sessions Judge), Cuddalore at Virdhachalam.) 1. Aggrieved over the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs.5,91,000/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, the Transportation Corporation, Villupuram has brought this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the claimants, on 20.07.2014 at about 13.30 hours, when the deceased was standing on the left side of the road at Mohamadiyar Bail Rice Mill on Kallakkurichy to Veppur Main Road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-3380 belonging to the appellant's Transport Corporation, which was driven by its driver, came from West to East direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased. Due to the same, he sustained fatal inju...
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.222 of 2007 dated 12.12.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Valliyur.) 1. The accident took place on 01.07.2007 at about 10.15 p.m., near Kavalkinaru Kanyakumari Main Road and it is a case of grievous injury and the claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. 2. The claim petition was filed in M.C.O.P.No.222 of 2007 before the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Valliyur. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty Four Thousand only) to the claimant. 3. The main grievance of the appellant is that it is a case of 'No Driving Licence' and the Tribunal made a categorical finding that the driver who was driving the vehicle, was not in possession of a valid driving licence, which was not disputed by the claimant. The...
Ponnammal Vs. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the docket order of return of plaint dated 26.8.2016 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.7335 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and further to direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi to number the plaint in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.7335 of 2016 by allowing this revision.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the docket order of return of plaint, dated 26.8.2016 in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.7335 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and further to direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi to number the plaint in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.7335 of 2016 by allowing this revision. 2. The revision Petitioner without representing and explaining the reasons for the above returns, straight-away filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India...
Vanniakula Kshatriar Temple and Nandavanam Trust by its Trustees and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
K.K. Sasidharan, J. Introductory 1. Whether an appeal would lie under Order 43, Rule 1 (t) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dismissing the application for re-admission of appeal, which was dismissed for default is the core issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Facts 2. The petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 424 of 1992 before the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, praying for a decree of recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The matter was taken up in appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No. 5 of 2003. The appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No. 24 of 2014 to restore the appeal. The application was dismissed. The said order was challenged before the Principal District Court, Salem in C.M.A.No. 6 of 2015. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was returned on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable under Sec...
A. Abhinaya Sundharai Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(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 in connection with the Impugned Proceedings for Internal Selection of Junior Assistant / Administration issued by the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.045392/189/G.56/G.561/2015-1 dated 22.05.2015 and quash the same as arbitrary and ultravires in so far as it excludes the duly qualified Assessors and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioner for consideration for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant / Administration.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.045392/189/G.56/G.561/2015-1, by which the 2nd respondent directed all the Superintending Engineers to send the particulars of qualified employees for filling up of 144 vacancies in Junior Assistant/Administration through internal selection, excluding the Assessor / Assessor G...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Chikkanna Garden, Shankarmutt Compound ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.240 of 2007 dated 18.11.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.241 of 2007 dated 18.11.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.242 of 2007 dated 18.11.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.) Common Judgment 1. The accident took place on 11.11.2006 at about 13.45 hours, at Vaniyambadi Krishnagiri Road near Duroflex Matresses Company and it is a case of grievous injury and the claimants sustained multiple injuries all over their bodies. 2. The claim petitions were filed in M.C.O.P.Nos.240 to 242 of 2007 be...
- ‹ Prev
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- Next ›
- Last »