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 Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1466 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. The Transport Corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Judgment and decree dated 07.10.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1466 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes, Chennai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. Wife and children of the deceased are the claimants. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating that the they are the legal representatives of the deceased fisherman, aged 48 years, who met with a fatal accident on 17.06.2006, they approached the Tribunal, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on the basis of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The ...
Salia Beevi Vs. Annadurai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 27.04.2007 in C.C.No.12168 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.) 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 27.04.2007 in C.C.No.12168 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 2. The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.12168 of 2004 on 27.04.2007, at paragraph 6, had, inter alia, observed that '... in the present case, in respect of the sale of the house, no document had come into existence and therefore, Ex.P.1 was not to be acceptable and P.W.1 (Salia Beevi), in her cross examination, had stated that she was not acquainted with the Accused and that she was not in talking term of the Accused and also had not seen him, she does not know i...
Sudha K. Velappan Vs. The District Collector, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelvel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned tender notice issued by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. A1/6854/2012 dated 14.02.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant licence to Shop No.21 situated in Tirunelveli Junction Bus Stand, Tirunelveli scheduled in impugned order dated 14.02.2016 in favour of the petitioner by considering his proposal petition dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the tender notice issued by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 14.02.2016 and for a consequential direction to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant licence in respect of Shop No.21 situated in Tirunelveli Junciton Bus Stand, Tirunelveli in favour of the petitioner by considering his proposal petition dated 27.01.2016. 2. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material reco...
S. Subramani and Another Vs. Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 08.11.2011 in I.A.No.601 of 2011 in O.S.No.389 of 1993, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Judge, Salem.) 1. Heard Mrs. A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. One Sengoda Nadar and Perianna Nadar have filed the suit in O.S.No.408 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The respondent herein also filed the suit in O.S.No.1544 of 1982 before the same Court for the relief of permanent injunction. After hearing the counsel for both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S. No. 408 of 1981 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1544 of 1982 by an order dated 30.03.1990. The judgment passed by the trial court in both the suits was the subject matter of S.A.Nos. 1389 and 1390 of 1992 before this Cou...
Malaichamy and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.20 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent dated 29.01.2016 and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.20 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent dated 29.01.2016 and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that investigation in this case in Crime No.20 of 2016 has been completed and an absconding charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai on 27.02.2016 itself. 3. Recording the same, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
N. Velu Vs. G. Velu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer in CRP No.3935 / 15: Civil Revision Petition (NPD) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the fair and decreetal orders, made in Election O.P.No.205 of 2011, dated 23.04.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. CRP No.4518 / 15:-Civil Revision Petition (NPD) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the fair and decreetal orders, made in Election O.P.No.205 of 2011, dated 23.04.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, in so far as imposing the cost of Rs.25,000/- against the petitioner / R-1.) Common Order: It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting. - TOM STOPPARD, Jumpers 1.1. Taking the same plea, the petitioner has filed Election Petition No.3935 of 2015, seeking for a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent, as Village Panchayat President of Kumararajapettai Village, is null and void, and for recounting of votes polled, including the postal votes. 2. E...
V. Ullamudaiyar Vs. The Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2016 and pass orders and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to fix separate dates of two factions for each festivals in the temples and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2016 and pass orders and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to fix separate dates of two factions for each festivals in the temples. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 that in respect of the very same prayer, a writ appeal has been preferred in W.A.(MD)No.807 of 2016 before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, seeking a direction to conduct the ...
S. Dhandapani and Another Vs. State Represented by The Sub-Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.825 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.825 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.825 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 406 and 420 IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the case in Crime No.825 of 2013 has been transferred from the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Oomatchikulam, Madurai District to the file of the Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai District. Therefore, this Court suo motu impleads the Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur...
M/s. Jeyam Marbles, Rep. by its Partner-L. Indirani Vs. The Appellate ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 12.05.2015 under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, against the order passed by the second respondent in No.33156141079/2010-2011, dated 13.03.2015 and hear and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 12.05.2015 under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, against the order passed by the second respondent in No.33156141079/2011-2012, dated 14.03.2015 and hear and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to admi...
S. Balakrishnan and Othres Vs. Virudhunagar Municipality, through its ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed in A.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.279 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.) 1. This Second Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed in A.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.279 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have inherited about 3.24 acres of land in ward No.18, Survey No. 834 and 835. A lay out was formed in the year 1960, by leaving necessary space for the AA road proposed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »