The Managing Director vs Smt.Basheera
Judges:
19 February, 2009·The Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 18.1.2001 passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in ...
Madras High Court
Vaiyapuri vs Valliammal
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Inveighing the order dated 9.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.267 of 2007 in O.S.No.49 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Bghavani., this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thu...
Madras High Court
M/S.Lancor Holdings Ltd vs State
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Crl.O.P.No.17044 of 2013 has been filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.O.P.No.24013 of 2013 has been filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2496 of 2013 on the file of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. The second respondent herein an...
Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Ayyavu
Judges:
18 February, 2009·The Miscellaneous Petition No.4292 of 2004 has been filed for condoning the delay of 183 days in preferring the appeal. Notice is yet to be served in spite of lapse of long period.2. In this case, notice was ordered on 18.3.2004 by the Division Bench of this Court and private notice was also permitt...
Madras High Court
P.Venkatachalam vs Valliyammal
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Inveighing the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in I.A.No.47 of 2008 in O.S.No.39 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would ...
Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Appusamy
Judges:
18 February, 2009·The Miscellaneous Petition No.15221 of 2005 has been filed for condoning the delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal. Notice is yet to be served in spite of lapse of long period.2. On going through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the reasons g...
Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.Venkataramani
Judges:
18 February, 2009·The Miscellaneous Petition No.10068 of 2005 has been filed for condoning the delay of 78 days in preferring the appeal. Notice is yet to be served in spite of lapse of long period.2. On going through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the reasons gi...
Madras High Court
Syed Badarunnissa vs Sri Thiruvikrama Narayana
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Inveighing the order dated 19.04.2007, passed by the District Munsif Court, Sirkali in I.A.No.290 of 2007 in O.S.No.168 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. An epitome of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revisi...
Madras High Court
A.Stephan vs Ponnammal
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Inveighing the order dated 15.06.2006, passed by the Additional District Cum Sessions (FTC II) Court at Coimbatore, in I.A.Nos.349 and 350 of 2006 respectively in O.S.No.781 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Despite printing the name,...
Madras High Court
S.Thangaraj vs Valliyammal
Judges:
18 February, 2009·Inveighing the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in I.A.No.45 of 2008 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would ...
Madras High Court
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.