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.
Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company, Mumbai V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2014 in MCOP.No.181 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company, Mumbai, appellant herein, has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2014 in MCOP.No.181 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam, mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation of Rs.19,11,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum directed to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased. 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellant insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- without any documentary evidence. According to the appellant, sister of the deceased was not dependant on the deceased, and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted...
Jainudeen Vs. The II Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent in M.C.No. 1 of 2016 dated 13.01.2016 and to quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent in M.C.No.1 of 2016 dated 13.01.2016 and to quash the same. 2. It is seen that this petition has been filed, challenging the show cause notice issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C., asking the petitioner to appear either in person or through an Advocate to show cause as to why a bond for Rs. 50,000/- should not be collected from him for maintaining peace. 3. Since this is only a show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings of the 1st respondent. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to appear before the Executive Magistrate with an Advocate of his choice and to submit his explanation as to why he need not furnish bonds. The ...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
R. Sudhakar, J. 1. The Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the Judgment dated 11.02.2015 passed in M.C.O.P. No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Tiruttani. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. On 07.09.2012 at about 12.50 hours, when the deceased Panju, aged about 40 years was riding a Bolero Car bearing No.TN 18K 4959 to his extreme left side of the road near Seven Pipe Bridge, Elavur on Arambakkam to Chennai road, at that time, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN 21 N 1337, which was coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased vehicle and caused the accident, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and was taken to Sundaram Medical Foundation and while taking treatment at the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries at about 7.50 p.m.. The claimants, who are wife, minor son and mother of the deceased have filed a cl...
The Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court dated 09.09.2014 made in W.P.No.24366 of 2014.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellants have preferred the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 09.09.2014 in W.P.No.24366 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order in W.P.No.24366 of 2014 on 09.09.2014 (filed by the 1st Respondent/ Petitioner), at paragraph 5, had observed the following: 5. It is seen from the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.484 of 2007, dated 30.10.2007, and W.P.(MD).Nos.6542 to 6544 and 6546 of 2014 that, when a post is a sanctioned post and any person has been appointed to that sanctioned post consequent to the retirement of a person holding that post, there is no need to get approval and the Authorities are bound to approve the same. In the case on hand also, the Record Clerk post is sanctioned post, as seen from the proceedings ...
S.V. Matha Prasad Vs. S.V.R. Saroja and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.73 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules against the Order dated 16.2.2015 made in Application No.6809 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.74 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules against the Order dated 16.2.2015 made in Application No.6810 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.75 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules against the Order dated 16.2.2015 made in Application No.6811 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.S.No.43 of 1962 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.76 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent ...
R. Jeyaprakash Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to file the final report in Crime No.594 of 2015 within a stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to file the final report in Crime No.594 of 2015 within a stipulated time. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.594 of 2015 has been completed and a closure report has been filed as mistake of fact before the jurisdictional Court. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Singaravelar Olympic Muthal Broadway Corner Varai Salaiyora Siru Kadai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
T.S. Sivagnanam, J. This Review petition, at the instance of an association registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, said to consisting of 276 members who are hawkers, seeks for review of the order and direction issued in W.P. No.32622 of 2015, dated 13.10.2015. 2. We have heard Ms. D. Nagasaila, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.R. Ramasamy, party-in-person, for the Writ Petitioner, Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.T.S. Murthi, learned Government Pleader and Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. K.S. Soundararajan, learned Standing counsel for the fourth respondent Corporation and Mr. K. Harishankar, for the seventh respondent. 3. The first respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation, dated 08.10.2015 to save the pedestrians and vehicle...
M.K. Vijayakumar and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.3862/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2016, while lifting the "Petti Samy" during the customary and conventional celebration of Masi Maha Sivarathiri festival to be conducted in Moonusamy @ Virumandisamy Temple situated at Thanakkankulam Village, Thirupparankundram, Taluk, Madurai District scheduled on 07.03.2016. in W.P.(MD) No.4304/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection for celebration of the temple festival of the Arulmigu Muniyasamy @ Virumbandi Petti Kovil on 07.03.2016 in the traditional manner by lifting the age old holy box kept in the petitioners residence in accordance with the understanding asper register...
Aasis Rahman @ Ashiq Rahman Vs. State through the Sub-Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.170 of 2014 dated 26.07.2014 on the file of the 1st respondent against the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.170 of 2014 dated 26.07.2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.170 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Woman Harassment Act, has been registered against the petitioner/A2. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/A2 and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identi...
Suresh Babu Vs. State by The Inspector of Police Talampur Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.155 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.) 1. The petitioner/A3 in Crime No.155 of 2015 has come forward with this application to quash the FIR which is filed against him for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during the year 2012 the defacto complainant, intended to purchase a house and hence, approached the accused persons who were running the construction/real estate business in the name and style of M/s.Unitech Ltd.. The said company developed individual 'Villas' at Nallambakkam Village, Chengaplet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The accused persons took the complainant to the said place and showed Plot Nos. 37, 42, 78, 86, 48, 51, 56 to her. Out of the said plots, the defacto complainant selected Plot No.42. A1, one Kalaivani also agreed to construct a house for the complainant in the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »