Chennai Court September 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.
Muthukumar and Vs. Arulmighu Naganathasamy Devasthanam and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.199 of 2015 in O.S.No.63 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.) 1. This Civil Revision petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, in I.A.No.199 of 2015 in O.S.No.63 of 2013, dated 25.11.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 3. According to the Revision petitioner, the first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.63 of 2013 before the Subordinate Court seeking to declare the sale deed dated 27.07.1997 executed by Ramachandra Mudaliar and others in favour of Shahul Hameed as null and void and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from removing the logs of trees kept in the suit property as well as for...
Anandha Lakshmi and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2014, dated 22.01.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Neyveli.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. C.M.A.No.1382 of 2016, is filed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-I) Ltd., Villupuram, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2014, dated 22.01.2016, on the file Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Neiveli, by which, the Tribunal, fixing negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 21 N 1473, awarded compensation of Rs.23,70,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 2. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed a separate appeal in C.M.A.No.979 of 2016, for enhancement. As facts and submissions, in both the cases, are co...
M. Saibudeen Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the orders dated 26.11.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.1310 of 2014 in C.C.No.9661 of 2014, Crl.M.P.No.1308 of 2014 in C.C.No.10189 of 2014, in Crl.M.P.No.1078 of 2014 in C.C.No.1270 of 2014, Crl.M.P.No.1079 of 2014 in C.C.No.1271 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2014 in C.C.No.9681 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to set aside the same and to discharge the petitioner/A1 from the said cases.) 1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 26.11.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.1310 of 2014 in C.C.No.9661 of 2014, Crl.M.P.No.1308 of 2014 in C.C.No.10189 of 2014, in Crl.M.P.No.1078 of 2014 in C.C.No.1270 of 2014, Crl.M.P.No.1079 of 2014 in C.C.No.1271 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2014 in C.C.No.9681 of 2014, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chenn...
Alagar @ Anupanadi Alagar Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. There were five other accused, who were arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 to A6. The trial Court framed as many as 3 charges against the accused. The first charge was against A1 to A5 under Section 148 IPC; the second charge was against A6 under Section 147 IPC and the third charge was against all the six accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 30.08.2007, the trial Court convicted the A1 to A5 under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court has also convicted A6 under Sections 147 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment ...
A. Hercules Vs. The State Tamilnadu, rep.by its Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned proceeding of the fourth respondent passed vide O.Mu.NO.101/A4/2012, dated Nil. 01.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Night Watchman in the fifth respondent school w.e.f. 04.10.2012 with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.509/2009 dated 21.10.2008 and W.A.No.1012/2009 dated 15.10.2014.) The petitioner seeks for quashing of the proceedings of the fourth respondent in O.Mu.No.101/A4/2012 dated Nil.01.2013 and quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Night Watchman in the fifth respondent school w.e.f. 4.10.2012 with all consequential benefits. 2. The fifth respondent is a religious minority Higher Secondary School, which comes under the ...
Dr. Olga George Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court, dated 31.01.2012 made in W.P.No.18766 of 2011.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These two intra court appeals have been filed by the aggrieved party against the orders of the learned single Judge, dated 18.10.2011 passed in W.P.No.14788 of 2010 and 31.01.2012 passed in W.P.No.18766 of 2011. 2. Though the appellant in W.A.No.395 of 2012 is not a party to the first impugned order, i.e., order in W.P.No.14788 of 2010, she preferred appeal as appellant on obtaining leave of the Court. As the other impugned order, i.e., order in W.P.No.18766 of 2011, was passed against her on the basis of the order in the former writ petition in W.P.No.14788 of 2010, she preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.338 of 2012. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) Both the writ appeals pertain to selection of the posts of Professor (Homoeopathy) by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, pursuant to its advertisement No.208, d...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.V.Murugesan, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant. 2. Paper publications effected for the Respondent on the Tamil and English Dailies, viz., 'Maalai Sudar', 'Makkal Kural' and 'Trinity Mirror' dated 25.08.2016 and 20.09.2016 respectively and the proofs are filed. Respondent called absent thrice. In view of the same, service held sufficient in respect of the Respondent. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is an unemployed graduate and searching for a job in abroad and also, he used to look after his family. Because of his poverty, he is unable to instruct his counsel to prefer an 'Appeal' within time. In that process, there had occasioned a delay of 71 days which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons. 4. It is not disputed that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Crl.A.SR.16483 of 2013 before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the judgment dated 09.11.2012 in C.A.No.21 of 2012 in...
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. K. Ramamurthy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5585/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.) 1. Assailing the quantum of compensation of Rs.10,13,600/- as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the multiple injuries sustained by the claimant, the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited/appellant herein has brought this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 30.09.2010, at about 23.00 hrs. while the claimant was travelling in the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 22 BM 4349 from East to West direction on Poikadai to Mangadu Road, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, the said vehicle hit on a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 22-5389 in which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. 3. Ms.R.Vijaya Kamala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that ...
V. Malathi Assistant Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Paramakudi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Ramasamy Rajarajan, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for Respondents No. 1 to 5, Mrs. A. Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader for Respondents No. 6 to 9, A.Abdul Asees for Respondents for 10 to 17, P. Kannan Kumar for Respondents No. 18 to 21. 2. The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 34078 of 2012 dated 25.04.2013 whereby which the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners who are the first to fifth Respondents in the instant Appeal. The factual matrix leading to the present controversy is that the Writ Petition No. 34078 of 2012 was filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 5 in the instant Appeal challenging the proceedings of the 8th Respondent on the instant Appeal releasing the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent/Office Manager in the department of employment and training wherein wh...
S. Sundari Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.2016 made in W.P.No.31580 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Being aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.09.2016 in W.P.No.31580 of 2016, the writ petitioner is before this Court with the present appeal. 2. Few facts, which led to filing of this writ appeal, are as follows: Both the appellant and the third respondent are adjacent land owners of the property in S.Nos.521/1-A and 521/2. The third respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 60/2008 before the Sub Court, Bhavani, seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and delivery of possession against the appellant. After contest, the said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 12.08.2010, the appellant had filed an appeal in A.S.No. 89 of 2010, which was dismissed on 07.04.2011. As against the same, the appellant had approached this Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »