Chennai Court April 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.
The Branch Manager, M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.7.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.980 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Tiruppur.) R. Sudhakar, J. 1. The TATA AIG General Insurance Company is the appellant in the above appeal challenging the award and decree dated 17.7.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.980 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Tiruppur. 2. Heard Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein. It is stated that the second respondent is not served. In view of the order to be passed in this matter the notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. 3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 1.7.2011 at 22.45 hours. While the claimant, the first responde...
Saravanan Vs. Anantharaj and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur, in M.C.O.P.No.535 of 2008, dated 01.03.2012, by enhancing the award amount to Rs.5 Lakhs to the appellant with proportionate interest.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant / claimant challenging the award dated 01.03.2012 in M.C.O.P.No.535 of 2008, passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur. 2. The appellant is the claimant. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in road accident claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent is owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: - (i) It is the case of the appellant / claimant before the Tribunal is that...
S.M. Shek Barid Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents police to register the FIR on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 1.3.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents police to register the FIR on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 1.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 01.03.2016 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 01.03.2016. 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 offence or drop action otherwise. With the abov...
C. Sakthivel Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register the petitioners complaint dated 12.2.2016 and to take appropriate action within stipulated time fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the petitioners complaint dated 12.2.2016 and to take appropriate action. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 12.02.2016 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 12.02.2016. 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 offence o...
L. Pandy Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a criminal case based on the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 13.5.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a criminal case based on the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 13.5.2015 and investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 13.05.2015 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 3rd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 13.05.2015. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in a...
M. Selvan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.02.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.02.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 29.02.2016 has been sent by post to the 2nd respondent, in which petition enquiry in CSR No.38 of 2016 is pending. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner sent the complaint by post, he 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 29.02.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be tak...
C. Mariappan and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.1152 of 2014 on the file of the J.M. at Sankarankovil in Crime No.267 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1152 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.267 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 325 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, has been registered against the petitioners/accused. After completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet, which was duly taken on file in C.C.No.1152 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A1 to A4 and the second respondent, a...
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Karthick and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court, V Judge), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4691 of 2012, the appellant Insurance Company has come up with this appeal. 2. The claimant in this case is the injured. On 16.09.2012, about 11.30 hours, when the claimant/1st respondent herein was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-03-C-3201 along with one G.Saravanan as a pillion rider, on Konnur High Road, opposite to Door No.111, Hall Baraccah Chicken, Mutton Centre, Otteri, Chennai-12 from west to east direction, a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TY-4199 came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, thereby, both the claimant and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Alleging that the owner and insurer of the Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, the claimant Karthik, in his claim petition sought a sum of Rs.6...
Bharath @ Barath Vs. The State by the Inspector of Police, Palladam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dated 29.10.2012 in SC.No.107/2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.107/2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and vide judgment dated 29.10.2012, the Trial Court convicted him for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, he is before this Court, with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- [A] The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ranganathan. He was working in a private Textile Mill at Kunnangalpalayam village in Tiruppur District. The accused was also working in the same Mill. On one occasion, pr...
K. Jothi Vs. S.K. Senthilkumaran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw the HMOP.No.287 0f 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli and transfer the same to any other Court in Thanjavur District.) 1. The Transfer CMP is filed to withdraw the HMOP.No.287 0f 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli and transfer the same to any other Court in Thanjavur District. 2. The learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the HMOP.No.287 0f 2014 itself was ordered ex parte on 11.08.2015. 3. In view of the above, nothing survives in this Transfer CMP. Hence, the Transfer CMP is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »