Chennai Court January 2017 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 Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. A. Rajari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2004, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) Prayer: Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.104 of 2004, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) Common Judgment 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award of Rs.3,88,652/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) for the death of one Aloysious, a retired Subedar of Indian Army, aged about 5 years and re-employed as an Accountant in C.S.D. Canteen of 11th Tamil Nadu N.C.C. Battalion, earning about Rs.9,586/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only), in the accident occurred...
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its District Collector, Kanyakumari Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2014 in E.P.No.28 of 2013 in O.S.No.227 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.) The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2014 in E.P.No.28 of 2013 in O.S.No.227 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The petitioners are respondents in E.P.No.28 of 2013 and defendants in O.S.No.227 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. In the Judgement and decree dated 25.06.20102 in O.S.No.227 of 2010, the trial Court held that Family Card being numbered 30/G/0271174 issued by the petitioners to the respondent is genuine and respondent is entitled to get ration articles from July 2012 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation. 3. The petitioners filed A.S.No.76 of 2012 on the file of...
M.V. Somasundaram Vs. Tamizharasi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: This first Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the decree and judgement dated 05.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.43 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.) 1. The un-successful plaintiff in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, is the appellant. According to the plaintiff, he and his brother one Shanmuga Udayar are members of a joint family. In a partition that took place in the year 1932, the said Shanmuga Udayar being the elder brother has taken larger share by allotting lesser share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter joined the Royal Indian Army and after discharge from the Army returned to his native place in 1943. Since his brother, the said Shanmuga Udayar, was a very influential person, he could not take any steps against him to demand his proper share. He left the village and joined Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, where he stayed till the death of Holy Mother in the year 1972....
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in ID No.80/2000 dated 7.3.2002 and quash the same.) 1. Heard. 2. The above writ petition was filed by State owned Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division - II) and having their office at Tiruchirapalli. The writ petition challenges an Award passed by the 1st Respondent Labour Court made in ID No.80/2000 dated 7.3.2002. By the aforesaid Award, the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement as a new entrant and without service continuity and back wages. The writ petition was admitted on 13.02.2003. Even at the time of admission, this Court passed the following order in W.P.M.P.5283 of 2003: Interim Stay on condition that the petitioner complies with the requirements of Sec.17(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Notice. 3. Subsequently on 26.09.2003, on being reported that the aforesaid order was co...
M. Vinoth Vs. R. Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to Admit this appeal and call for the records from the trial court namely, the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode, duly quash and set aside the Judgment of the lower court by convicting the Respondent / Accused in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode.) Judgment: 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant. 2. The Appellant / Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Order dated 21.01.2016 in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC) No.2, Erode. 3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC) No.2, Erode while passing the Impugned Order on 21.01.2016 in STC No.91 of 2015 at Paragraph No.2 had observed that this case was pending from 03.08.2015 for cross examination of P.W.1. In the present case, the Complainant since had not appeared regularly before the Court, for his p...
Y.J. Enterprises Rep by its Proprietor S. Jose, Pallikaranai Vs. The C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in F.No. SIIB/46/2000/ACC/S16/3/2001/SIIB dated 17.03.2001 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent herein to return the goods covered under Shipping Bill No.222/562 dated 03.07.2000 to the petitioner forthwith. Order: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is an exporter, is challenging the show cause notice dated 17.03.2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (2nd respondent) under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The case of the department has been set out in the preamble portion of the show cause notice dated 17.03.2001 and it may be necessary to extract the same verbatim below, for proper appreciation of the dispute at h...
A. Anandan and Others Vs. Gurunathan died Represented by Gnanam and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 24 of the Civil Proceedure Code praying to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2011 and O.S.No.284 of 2015 respectively from the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District and transfer the same to the City Civil Court at Chennai for hearing the same along with the suit O.S.Nos.7072 of 2014 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.) Commonorder: 1. There are two Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. O.S.No.1 of 2011 is filed on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee seeking relief of partition and separate possession. O.S.No.7072 of 2014 is filed by the respondents in the previous suit as plaintiffs on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for the relief of damages and permanent injunction. The same parties had filed O.S.No.284 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee for declaration that the deed of relinquishment dated 06.02.2012 is null and void and for other reliefs. 2. O.S.No.1 o...
Balu (Deceased) and Others Vs. Velayutham and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the Revision Petition and to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.188 of 2013 in O.S.No.188 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam dated 24.09.2014.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.188 of 2013 in O.S.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam dated 24.09.2013. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No188 2002, and the Suit has been filed praying for permanent injunction. 3. The petitioners/plaintiff filed the Suit in the year 2002 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that during the pendency of the Suit, the respondents/defendants altered the nature of the property by demolishing portion of the building in the year 2004 and subsequently in the year 2008, the respondents/ defendants have trespassed into the suit property and caused huge damage. Under those circumstances, they fi...
M/s. Eris Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad Vs. M/s. Micro Labs Ltd. B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Application filed under Section 124 of Trademarks Act 1999 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the suit proceedings in view of the rectification application filed by the applicant / defendant before IPAB for removal Trademark "OLAMIN" vide Application No.451348 in Class 5 registered in the name of the respondent / plaintiff until the final disposal of rectification proceedings.) 1. The captioned application has been filed by the original respondent to stay the proceedings in the suit, until final disposal of the Rectification Proceedings for removal of Trademark "OLAMIN", which is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai (In short "IPAB"). 2. It is the case of the applicant /original defendant that the trademark "OLAMIN" of the respondent/original plaintiff is not registrable as it is INN name which cannot be registered as per Section 13 of Trademarks Act, 1999 and the respondent/original plaintiff is not the bona fide user among other grou...
Dr. M.D. Raju Kumar and Another Vs. The Registrar Bharathiar Universit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer in W.A.No.1251 of 2006: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.18919 of 1996 by His Lordship Mr.Justice M.E.N.Patrudu, dated 22.08.2006. in W.A.No.1252 of 2006 : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.12038 of 1997 by His Lordship Mr.Justice M.E.N.Patrudu, dated 22.08.2006. in W.A.No.1332 of 2006: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.12038 of 1997 by His Lordship Mr.Justice M.E.N.Patrudu, dated 22.08.2006.) Common Judgment: M. Sundar, J. 1. Facts in a nutshell: (i) Issue is one between Dr.M.D.Rajukumar and Bharathiar University, Dr.M.D.Rajukumar having served as Deputy Director of the School of distance education in Bharathiar University for little over four years and seven months. The post of Deputy Director itself is temporary and obviously so is the appointment. In the course of service, Bharathiar University served a charge memo on Dr.M.D.Rajukumar which wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »