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. Selvaraj Vs. The State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) L ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in computing the gratuity, leave salary payable to the petitioner by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on the petitioner's basic pay plus grade pay at the rate of 100% instead of 107% as illegal and contrary to the G.O.(Ms) No.245 Finance (Allowances) Department dated 10.10.2014 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently direct the respondents to compute and pay him the difference amount in gratuity, leave salary by taking into account revised rate of dearness allowance i.e., at the rate of 107% of pay + grade pay as fixed in G.O.(Ms) No.245 Finance (Allowances) Department dated 10.10.2014 within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) Order: 1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent corporation as Technical Assistant with effect from 14.09.1978; that he was subsequen...
The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Sreevani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.9.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.320 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Bhavani, Erode District.) 1. The National Insurance Company Limited, Bhavani has questioned the liability for payment of compensation of Rs.1,03,482/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the first respondent/claimant in the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- A 13 year old minor girl, while returning from school on 11.3.2009 at about 5.15 P.M., in her bicycle from Kavindapady to Gobi Main road, nearby old post office, a TVS Centra motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 33 AX 3852 driven by the second respondent with two more persons as pillion-riders dashed against the minor girl's bicycle, resultantly the school going girl sustained grievous injuries on the right temporal region a...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its branch manager Vs. Ch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment made in MCOP NO. 697/2013 dated 07.03.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Special Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No. 697/2013 dated 07.03.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Special Sub Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The accident took place on 22.01.2011 at about 7.30 p.m near Athikadu-Meyyur road and it is a case of grievous injury, in which the claimant sustained fractures in right thigh (type II), lacerated wound to an extent of 5.1 c.m over the right thigh and injuries over the right knee, left knee and all over the body. Considering the nature of the injury, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.7,28,460/- as total compensation under different heads. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously contended that the driver, ...
The Official LiquidatorHigh Court, Madras as the Liquidator of M/s. Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Application filed under Section 460(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9, 11(b) of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959). 1. Pursuant to order dated 09.09.2016, a direction was issued to the Official Liquidator (OL) to sell the immovable and moveable properties of the Company-in-Liquidation, i.e., M/s.Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Limited. 2. Consequently, the auction process was kick-started. Bids received were required to be opened today, in Court. 2.1. I am informed that no bids have been received for Lot-I which comprises of leasehold land and moveable assets. 3. In so far as Lot-II is concerned which comprises of a Maruti-800 Car, bearing Registration No. TN-07W.1425, one bid has been received, in Court, today, from, one Mr.P.R.Kanagamani, S/o.Raja, Pattakkaranpalayam P.O., Penrundurai Taluk, Erode District. He has placed before me two Demand Drafts having an accumulative value of Rs.3,500/-. The details of the Demand Drafts are as follows: Sl.No.Demand Draft No.Amount...
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chinnav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam.) 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present C.M.A.No.684 of 2015, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The accident took place on 26.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m. and it is a case of grievous injuries including fractures. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.3,29,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The appellant Oriental Insurance Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal mainly on the ground that the driver who was plying the vehicle did not possess valid licence and the appellant insurance company should be exonerated from its liability....
Ganesan and Another Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Crl.A. No. 783 of 2015:- Appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed in C.C. No. 13 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Crl.A. No. 784 of 2015:- Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed in C.C. No. 13 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.) 1. These Criminal Appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There are two accused in the Criminal Case. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2015 is the second accused and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2015 is the first accused. After trial, both the accused were convicte...
Jothimani, S/o. Rajangam and Another Vs. State, rep.by The Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.30.2015, made in S.C.No.104/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy District.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)NO.18 of 2016 is the 1st accused and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.296 of 2015 is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchy Division, Tiruchy. They stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 and 392 read with 397 IPC. After trial, the trial court found them guilty under Sections 302 and 392 read with 397 IPC and acquitted them from the charge under Section 120-B IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial court sentenced both the appellants/accused to undergo imprisonment for life and each to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6months and each of them to undergo rigorous i...
Perumal Vs. Kanimozhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and final order dated 13.10.2015 passed in I.A.No.2227 of 2015 in G.O.P.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.) Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.2227 of 2015 in G.O.P.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the respondent, has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent filed the Original Petition in G.O.P.No.80 of 2013 to restore the custody of minor Nikhil to her. 3. The petitioner - grandfather of the minor filed his counter and was contesting the Original Petition. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for trial after the closure of the petitioner's side evidence, the case was adjourned to 12.11.2014, 24.11.2014, 12.12.2014, 08.01.2015, 13.01.2015, 02.02.2015, 10.02.2015 and on 24.02.2015 for the respondent's side evidence. Since the petitioner...
Uma Anandan Vs. R. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal of the Respondent/Accused passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level No.II), Coimbatore in S.T.C.No.100 of 2012 dated 17.07.2014.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level No.II), Coimbatore in S.T.C.No.100 of 2012 dated 17.07.2014. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level No.II), Coimbatore, while passing the impugned judgment in S.T.C.No.100 of 2012 on 17.07.2014 at para 18, among other things had observed that ....it is concluded that the complainant had failed to explain the absence of the endorsement dated 01/02/2011 in Ex.D5. Since the complainant failed to explain the same, the endorsement dated 01.02.2011 in Ex.P1 and the promissory note dated 01.02.2011 (Ex.P2...
Thanammal Vs. M. Madhavi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.51 of 2001, dated 26.04.2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Nagercoil, pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2001 in O.S.No.174 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil made in A.S.No.25 of 1999 dated 24.01.2003 pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 in O.S.No.696 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.) S.A.No.958 of 2003 1. The second plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.696 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is the appellant in this second appeals. 2. The suit in O.S.No.696 of 1993 was filed by one Ganapathi Pillai for declaration that he is the real owner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- Next ›
- Last »