Chennai Court December 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.
S. Nethaji Vs. Vasuki
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C., against the order, dated 27.01.2016, made in I.A.No.168 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai.) Order: 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 27.01.2016, made in I.A.No.168 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The respondent filed the said H.M.O.P., for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The petitioner was set ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed on 10.01.2005. The petitioner filed I.A.No.68 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1855 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. According to the petitioner, he was residing at Chennai and he suffered heavy loss in the business and therefore, he suffered mentally and he ...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Pushpa and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act against the Order dated 01.10.2004 made in W.C.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation(Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I) at Chennai - 6.) Judgement: 1. The insurance company has come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award dated 01.10.2004 passed in W.C.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I) at Chennai - 6. The said W.C.No.18 of 2004 was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 herein contending that on 02.11.2003 the husband of the 1st respondent namely D. Mahalingam was employed as a Driver in the lorry owned by the 7th respondent herein, bearing Registration No.TN02 B 6070. During the course of such employment, when the deceased was driving the lorry in Chinnamandali village, Tiruvallur district, he suffered a massive cardiac pain and he died during the course of employment...
S. Swarnamukhi (deceased) and Others Vs. L.S. Gupta and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order VI of Original Side Rules against the judgment and decree against the defendants directing partition by metes and bounds the properties more particularly described in the schedule hereunder and allot 1/6th share in the plaintiffs, direct the defendants and in particular defendants 7 and 8 to render a true and correct account in relation to all the properties left behind by the deceased Chenchubai Ammal which are still to be partitioned and direct partition by metes and bounds thereof and allot 1/6th share thereof the plaintiffs, direct the defendants and in particular defendants 7 and 8 to render a true and correct account of all the realization from the properties left behind by the deceased Chenchubai Ammal including the properties more particularly described in the schedule hereunder and direct the 7 th and 8 th defendants to pay over 1/6th of the net realization to the plaintiffs, fo...
Jaishankar Vs. Rajamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 24.03.2011 made in I.A.No.301 of 2011 in O.S.No.35 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.) 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner herein, challenging the order in I.A.No.301 of 2011 in O.S.No.35 of 2003, dated 24.03.2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2003 before the learned District Munsif Court at Attur for permanent injunction. After evidences by both the parties, this petitioner/plaintiff has filed the application under Section 151 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.301 of 2011 in O.S.No.35 of 2003 for Re-open the case for further cross examination of the D.W.1 since some important questions were left out at the time of cross examination of the D.W.1. Hence, to putforth the case of the plaintiff in a clean way, he wants to re-open the case for further cross ...
Palani Kunnakudi, Samudrapatti Annadhana Madam Vs. S. Venkataramanan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
1. This Review Application has been filed by the Appellant in S.A.No.1375 of 1996, to reconsider the Judgment dated 11.10.2007. 2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.872 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul against the respondent for declaration of title in respect of 14 cents of land in Survey No.136/2, Samudrapatti Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up by the respondent. According to petitioner, an extent of 1 acre 42 cents of land comprised in S.No.136/2, Samudrapatti Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, belonged to petitioner Trust and putup the superstructure and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent was permitted to occupy 14 cents in the said property. The permission so granted was revoked subsequently by the notice dated 1.3.1989 and the respondent was called upon to demolish the construction putup by him and deliver vacant pos...
M. Baluy and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2015 to issue free house pattas on the basis of the provision of House Site Patta to the landless Adhi Dravida People Scheme.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2015 to issue free house pattas on the basis of the provision of House Site Patta to the landless Adhi Dravida People Scheme. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the above said representation submitted by the Petitioner to issue free house pattas on the basis of the provision of House Site Patta to the landless Adhi Dravida People ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. M. Kasthuri and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award and decree dated 26.11.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.2996 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 26.11.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.2996 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. The facts of the case is that on 23.06.2005 at about 20.00 hours, the deceased Murugesan was about to complete the crossing of Dr.Deshmuk Durgabai Street from East to West at the junction of Malligaippu Nagar, near Malar hospital and at that time, a Hero Honda bearing Registration No.TN-07-T-CA-CO-021 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from South to North, hit the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died. 3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the legal represe...
Asalambal and Another Vs. Rani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2002 made in MCOP.No.356 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Perambalur.) Judgment: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2002 made in MCOP.No.356 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Perambalur. 2. The appellants herein are the parents of the deceased Subramanian and the respondents 4 and 5 in the claim petition MCOP.No.356 of 1999 and the claimants in MCOP.No.72 of 1999. Aggrieved against the order made in MCOP.No.356 of 1999, the respondents 4 and 5 therein, filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. The appellants herein filed separate claim petition in MCOP.No.72 of 1999, before the Tribunal for damages and compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- the trial Court after hearing both sides, directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay Rs....
K. Lakshiammal and Others Vs. P. Annapushpam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.3 of 2007, dated 04.03.2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.103 of 2002, dated 22.11.2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi.) 1. The defendants 1 to 17 in the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. 2. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No. 103 of 2002 for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit second schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first schedule property has been described as a punja land measuring an extent of 3.85 acres in Survey No.315 in Alangulam Village, Tenkasi Taluk. The second schedule is an extent of 96 c...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Original Petition seeking 'Grant of Special Leave' as against the Order of Acquittal dated 04.04.2016 in S.T.C.No.6 of 2007 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. 2. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the complaint was taken on file in the year 2007 and the Complainant was examined as P.W.1 on 16.07.2007 and thereafter, the Respondent/Accused dragged the case for nearly 8 years without cross examining P.W.1. Ultimately, P.W.1 was cross examined on 04.06.2015. As such, the trial Court had wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant contends that on 04.04.2016, when the impugned order was passed in S.T.C.No.6 of 2007 the presence of the Petitioner/Appellant/ Complainant was not an indispensable one, but this aspect of the mat...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »