Chennai Court March 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/s. Divya Impex, Bengaluru rep by its Authorized Signatory and Others ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: W.P.No.922 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned tender notification in Tender No.1/2015 dated 11.12.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notification in terms of the tender notification issued in 1/2011 dated 18.02.2011. W.P.No.1211 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the invitation of tender in Tender No.1/2015 issued by the 2nd respondent as Tender Inviting Authority for production and supply of Polyester Hologram Excise Labels dated 11.12.2015 and quash the same. W.P.No.2009 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue a fresh tender notification in terms of G.O.Ms.25 dated 25.08.2015 iss...
The Branch Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Shanthi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.454 of 2012.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri vide judgment dated 08.02.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.454 of 2012, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant. 3. The case on hand is fatal in nature. Facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal would run thus: (i) On 19.07.2002, about 23.00 hours, the deceased, T.Venkatachalam, was proceeding in his Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN 29/E 2743 along with three others from Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri. According to the clai...
S.E. Zarina Begum and Others Vs. P.M.S. Latiff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 18.09.2015 made in I.A.No.13735 of 2013 in O.S.No.1781 of 2013.) 1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.1781/2013 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent in the revision is the plaintiff in the above said suit. The suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from in any way interfering with respondent s/plaintiff s alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property including electricity and water supply except adopting due process of law. 2. The petitioners herein/defendants, on appearance filed an application in I.A.No.1375/2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint averments do not make out a caus...
The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Vs. Malarkodi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur.) C.T. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., is to the quantum of compensation of Rs.19,28,568/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., awarded to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Court, Karur, in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2012. 2. In as much as the challenge is restricted, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to advert to the finding of negligence, and liability fastened on the appellant, to pay compensation. 3. Short facts leading to the appeal are that on 15.03.2012, in the accident, which occurred, involving a motor cycle and lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 K 2377 and insured with the Reliance General In...
Kanyakumari District Planters Association, Nagarcoil rep., by its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 05.04.2002 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.7275 of 1985.) Common Judgment: T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The common issue raised in these cases is the validity of the notification issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, declaring the lands owned by the appellants/petitioners as Private Forests under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. In this batch, there are Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions. The Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 05.04.2002 in W.P.No.7275, 7276 of 1985 etc., and fresh Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners which were tagged along with the Writ Appeals as the issue involved were more or less identical. 3. The Writ Petitions were dismissed upholding the validity of the Act and the notifications issued under it, declaring the lands of the Appellants/Petitioners as Pri...
Selvaraj Vs. Sukumaran Nair Chellan Nadar (died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the fair and decretal order dated 29.01.2016 passed in E.P.No.92 of 2011 in O.S. No.350 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. 2. The petitioner herein is the eighth respondent in E.P.No.92 of 2011 and eighth defendant in the Suit in O.S. No.350 of 1979. The petitioner is the legal heir of the original first defendant Chellan Nadar. After the death of the first defendant Chellan Nadar, the respondents 4 to 9 including the petitioner were implicated as defendants 4 to 9. The first respondent filed a Suit in O.S. No.350 of 1979 for redemption of Suit property. A preliminary decree was passed on 25.04.1991. A final decree was passed on 17.12.1996 directing the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.89,551/- being the development charges. The petitioner and the respondents 4 to 9 filed A.S.No.59 of 1997. By the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001, the first Appellate Court modified the amount mentioned in...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. The Petitioner has filed this instant Original Application before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court to issue subpoena to the then Assistant Returning Officer, Kolathur Assembly Constituency, now working as Assistant Commissioner V, Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 viz., Mr.Boovaraghavan, to come and give evidence for the purpose of proving the 15 CDs marked as Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-15, by C.W.2 on 28.08.2015 under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. According to the Petitioner, C.W.2 (Mohanachandran), the present Returning Officer for Kolathur Constituency, in his evidence, had deposed that the documents in Serial Nos.1 to 8 in O.A.No.695 of 2015 are presently available in his office and he had brought the said documents with him now but he was not in possession of the certificates authenticating the same and further he had stated that the CDs (15 Nos.) were maintained by the earlier Returning Officer ...
M/s. Jumbo Bags Ltd. Vs. M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer : Petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, r/w Clause 2 of the Appointment of Arbitrator's Scheme by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court's Scheme, 1996, for appointment of an independent sole Arbitrtor to resolve the disputes between the parties arising out of the Insurance claim under Policy No.710700/11/13/01/00000035.) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 r/w Clause 2 of the Appointment of Arbitrator's Scheme by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court's Scheme, 1996, for appointment of an independent sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties arising out of the Insurance claim under Policy No.710700/11/13/01/00000035. 2. The petitioner company is public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Poly woven bags, having substantial portion of equity shares held by the public. The company has been insuring their manufacturing units covering stocks...
David Arokiaraj @ Dass Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.160 of 2007 dated 14.07.2008 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Thiruvallur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No.160 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Thiruvallur. The 2nd accused was one Mrs.Mary Xavier. The trial court framed as many as four charges against the accused. The first charge was against the appellant/1st accused under Section 302 of IPC. The 2nd charge was against the 2nd accused under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. The 3rd charge was against the 2nd accused under Section 302 read with 201 of IPC and the 4th charge was against the 2nd accused under Section 203 read with 34 of IPC. By judgment dated 14.07.2008, the trial court convicted both the accused. As far as the appellant/1st accused is concerned, the trial court convicted him under ...
M. Govindan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case and investigate the matter based upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 29.09.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case and investigate the matter based upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 29.09.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 29.09.2015 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 29.09.2015. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable off...