Chennai Court July 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 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai and Others Vs. Nachimuth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1186 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC to enhance the award dated 11.04.2005 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1186 of 2003 on the file of MACT (Additional District Court, FTC No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) Common Judgment: 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the appellant Insurance Company, who is the second respondent in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1186 of 2003, has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.751 of 2006. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, being the claimants, having been not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.11,33,396/-, have filed the cross objection in Cross Obj. No.97 of 2014, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. W...
Usharani and Another Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C. No.18 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikkottai and quash the same as illegal. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikkottai and quash the same as illegal. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3 Before going into the facts of the case, it is necessary to state the relationship among the parties. 4 One Thyagarajan had two wives, viz., X and Usharani. Muthukumaran is the son of Thyagarajan through X. After the demise of X, Thyagarajan married Usharani and through her, he has a son by name Thamil Kumaran. Thyagarajan has also breathed his last. Muthukumaran has married one Bakialakshmi. 5 On the complaint lodged by Bakialakshmi, the respondent polic...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. This application is filed by the applicant / defendant for condonation of 2623 days delay in filing the written statement. 2. The suit is one for specific performance and for consequential reliefs, based on the agreement of sale dated 15.07.2004. Though the defendant was served with suit summons and entered appearance through counsel, did not file the written statement within time. 3. From the records, it is seen that several times, the defendant had changed Counsel. Later, the defendant was called absent and set exparte and an exparte decree was passed by this Court on 08.09.2009. 4. Application No.4016 of 2011 was filed by the defendant for condoning the delay in setting aside the exparte decree dated 08.09.2009. The delay was also condoned by this Court on 28.01.2016 and the exparte decree was set aside on 16.06.2016 in Application No.2087 of 2016. Now, the present application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 5. The lear...
C. Vinodh Kumar and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.2 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners 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 Gover...
The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Chennai Vs. Seetha Kingston Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.20847 of 2011, dated 12.10.2011.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.10.2011, passed in W.P.No.20847 of 2011, by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The first respondent herein, as petitioner, has filed W.P.No.20847 of 2011, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the appellants/respondents to renew the licence, under Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965. 3. It is averred in the petition that the first respondent/petitioner has entered into a lease agreement with Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in respect of the building in question for a period of 99 years, for running the school in question. The second respondent/first respondent, who is the District Collector, Chennai, has to give necessary licence. Further it is averred in the petition that the lease ...
Sivakumar Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 25.08.2015 made in S.C.No.102 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.102 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment, dated 25.08.2015, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this a...
T.N.C. Venkatrangan Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue (Inspector Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order of the respondent herein in his proceedings No.29629/N5/c1/2002 dated 18.07.2005.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the respondent dated 18.07.2005 and made in his Proceedings No.29629/N5/c1/2002. 2. Heard Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. The appellant T.N.C.Venkatrangan had purchased a landed property along with a building under the sale deed dated 01.03.2001 from one Mrs.Alamelu Ammal. The land measures two grounds and 1348 sq.ft and the buildings thereon bearing New No.169 (Old No.62) and situated at Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 comprised in R.S.No.28 previous T.S.No.4677 and 4719, present T.S.No.8059 of Block No.107 of T.Nagar Division, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, covered by Layout Nos.88/49, 69,50 and 82/...
B. Loganathan Vs. Inspector of Police, Lalapettai Police Station, Kuli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: (in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.212 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai, dated 22.03.2016, in C.M.P.No.1046 of 2016 in P.R.C.No.II / 2014 in R.P.No.111 of 2014 and return the properties to the petitioner. Prayer: (in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.213 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 r/w 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai, dated 22.03.2016, in C.M.P.No.1205 of 2016 in P.R.C.No.II / 2014 in R.P.No.8 of 2014 and return the properties to the petitioner. Prayer: (in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.214 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 r/w 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai, dated 22.03.2016, in C.M.P.No.1206 of 2016 in P.R.C.No.II / 2014 in R.P.No.11 of 2014 and return the prop...
Velammal Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.145/2015/A1 dated 26.02.2016 and quash the same.) T. Raja, J. 1. When the matter was taken up in the first call, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, in order to provide one more opportunity to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter was passed over in the morning session and again, it was called at 2.15 p.m. Even then, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Thus, this Writ Petition stands dismissed for 'non-prosecution'. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
The Management Muruga Home Industries, Rep. by its Managing Partner N. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 12.10.2007, made in W.P.(MD)No.7620 of 2006.) 1. These intra-court appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.10.2007 in W.P.(MD)Nos.7620, 7618, 7619, 7617 and 7621 of 2006 and the common order dated 17.10.2007, in W.P.(MD)Nos.4184, 4185, 4183 of 2006 and 6653 of 2005 respectively, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge negatived the prayer to quash the order passed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directing payment of differential wage with penalty. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2008 is at the instance of Southern Cottage Beedi Manufacturers Association and the prayer is to direct the first and second respondents to finalize the fixation of rates of minimum wages for workers in Beedi Industry by adopting zonal wise minimum wage fixation based on the cost of index numbers of Nagercoil or Madurai, in terms of Section 3(3)(a)(iv) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »