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.
Sundaramoorthy Vs. Paramakudi Vanniyar Uravinmurayalarkalin Podhu Sabh ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decretal order made in E.A.No.27 of 2004 in E.P.No.23 of 2004, dated 30.4.2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramagudi.) 1. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted before this Court that main A.S.No.77 of 2004 itself was disposed on 22.6.2005 and hence, the above Civil Revision Petition challenging order made in E.A.No.27 of 2004 in E.P.No.2 of 2004, dated 30.4.2004 also becomes infructuous. The learned counsel for the respondents has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., T. Nagar, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.259 of 2004, dated 30.10.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The appellant Insurance Company who is arrayed as second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.259 of 2004 filed by the respondents 1 to 5/claimants on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Court - Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, had filed this appeal. 2. The deceased, namely, R.Sridhar, is the husband of the first respondent/first claimant and father of the minor son/second respondent/second claimant. The respondents 3 and 4/claimants 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased and the fifth respondent/fifth claimant is the sister of the deceased. 3. The deceased was aged about 34 years and had the qualification of B.Sc., P.G.D.C.A., and P.G....
Gurusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the District Collector and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2010 made in A.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani confirming the judgement and decree dated 22.01.2010 made in O.S.No.336 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.) 1. The plaintiff by way of this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2010 made in A.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, confirming the judgement and decree dated 22.01.2010 made in O.S.No.336 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani. 2. The suit for mandatory injunction. 3. The avernments contained in the plaint in brief are as follows: In respect of the suit properties, considering the plaintiff's title and enjoyment, the third defendant by his proceedings dated 14.10.1999 had granted patta in the name of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has been declared as patta holder for the sui...
Dharmaraj Robert Manickam and Another Vs. Rajendran 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 dated 28.09.2010 and passed in A.S.No.83 of 2007 by the Hon'ble Sub Court, Thoothukudi as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 and passed in O.S.No.29 of 2006 by the Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Sathankulam.) 1. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam, are the appellants. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2006 for a declaration that the suit second schedule is a public cart track and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment made by the first defendant in respect of a portion of the second schedule namely the first item of second schedule and to recover possession. The suit is also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment over the second schedule public cart track. The suit is filed in a representative capacity. 3. The br...
Yesudhas and Others Vs. Primala Regu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dated 31.01.2012 in A.S.No.44 of 2011 reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, dated 21.02.2011 in O.S.No.117 of 2004.) 1. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004 (originally it was O.S.No.24 of 1997) on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, are the appellants in the second appeal. The appellants are the legal heirs of one C.Rajammal, who is the first plaintiff in the suit. 2. It was the case of the first plaintiff in the suit that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan on 12.03.1994 and had executed a Rekai acknowledging receipt of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the first plaintiff. It was the further case of the first plaintiff that the defendant had not paid either the principal or interest towards repayment...
R. Shanmugalakshmi Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to letter TNSTC/Pension/2827 dated 16.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to make payment of pension as per the provisions contained under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Rules within a specified time frame that may be fixed.) Order: 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on 20.04.1998 on compassionate basis on the death of her husband Rajapandian. She continued in service as Sweeper and it was confirmed on 01.03.2006 as per reference No.TNSTC/ADMIN/A2/573, dated 24.02.2006. She was allowed to retire on 28.02.2011. The period of service rendered in the respondent Corporation was 9 years, 9 months and 24 days. The writ petitioner, after retirement, applied for pension. The respondent Corporation would state that eligible service for pension with minimum 10...
Vetha Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pattabiram Police sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is preferred under Sections 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 24.12.2010 made in C.A.No.31 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur confirming the judgment, dated 20.5.2008 made in C.C.No.302 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur.) The sole accused in C.C.No.302 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur is the revision petitioner. 2. The prosecution version of the case as against the revision petitioner in brief is as under: (i) PWs-1 and 2 are spouses. They reside in Pattabiram in Tiruvallur District. On 4.10.2006, night, PW-2 was sleeping on the cot, while her husband/PW-1 was sleeping on the floor in the same room. Around 3 a.m., the accused snatched gold thali chain from PW-2. She raised alarm. PW-1 caughthold of his legs. However, he had managed to escape with the gold chain. (ii) At about 4.30 a.m., at the Pattabiram Police station, PW-1 gave Ex.P-1...
S. Balasubramaniam Vs. State rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the VIII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.272 of 2011 in C.C.No.21 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011.) This revision has been directed at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore as against the grant of extension of time for prosecution in C.M.P.No.272 of 2011. 2. On 25.8.2006, a road accident has been reported to the respondent police alleging that it is a case of rash and negligent driving of the accused and he has also caused injuries to the victim. The police registered a case in Cr.No.250 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. As per Sec.460 Cr.P.C., charge sheet is to be filed on or before 24.8.2009. However, it was not filed in time. Later, on 31.1.2011 final report was filed by the respondent police along with a petition in C.M.P.No.272 of 2011 under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. seeking condonation...
K. Kanchana Devi Vs. The Commissioner, Department of Animal Husbandry, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1025-Aa-08 dated 06/08/2008 and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to joint duty as per the appointment order in SA.M.Na.Ka.No. 1025-Aa-08 dated 15/05/2008 as Most backward Class (MBC). 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Krishna Pillai Vs. Kumaresan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.425 of 2016 in O.S.No.98 of 2007, dated 28.9.2016, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.425 of 2016 in O.S.No.98 of 2007, dated 28.9.2016, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2007 praying for realization of a sum of Rs.1,31,000/-from the Petitioner with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for costs. The revision Petitioner herein failed to appear before the trial Court and hence he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 22.12.2011.The Petitioner herein has filed an application on 2.1.2012 to set aside the exparte decr...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »