Chennai Madurai Court October 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.
Malairaj and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Mudukul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 26.03.2015, made in S.C.No.79 of 2013, by the Sessions cum Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. The trial Court framed as many as 4 charges against the accused as under: Charge No.AccusedOffence U/s.1A1 to A3U/s.498-A IPC2A1U/s.302 IPC3A2 and A3U/s.302 r/w 34 IPC4A1 to A3U/s.201 IPC By judgment dated 26.03.2015, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for th...
A. Solai Thevar Vs. The Assistant Settlement Officer (South) Chepauk, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition is 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 dated 31.05.2010 in Na.Ka.A1/299/2006 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 31.05.2010, in Na.Ka.A1/299/2006 passed by the first respondent. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In the impugned order, it is stated that against the impugned order, right of appeal before Land Tax Officer, Chennai, within a period of 30 days. In spite of that, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2010 and the same is pending. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of the appeal, the authority concerned shall consider without taking the delay into account and dispose of the appeal within a pe...
Lakshmana Perumal Vs. Deivanai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order of return dated 12.09.2016 passed in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram and further to direct the trial Court to take the application on file and number the same.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order of return, dated 12.09.2016 passed in un-numbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, wherein, it has been stated that: 12.09.2016 Return: ''Since, the Petitioner/second defendant stated in his written statement about non-seeking of relief against ''A'' schedule property in O.S.No.60 of 2010 by plaintiff, how can be file separate petition to be stated.'' 2. According to the Petitioner, earlier suit has been filed for permanent injunction in O.S.No.60 of 2010, on the file of t...
P. Veera Bhaarathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in order G.O.(D).No.646/Home [Prison IV] Department/2015, dated 28.08.2015, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner Veerabharaathi, S/o.Ponniah, aged about 45 years/2016] in prison before this Court from their illegal custody and to set him at liberty forthwith under the provisions of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is a life convict, lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. He has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.646/Home [Prison IV] Department/2015, dated 28.08.2015 and he has prayed for a Mandamus to set him at liberty. 2.The facts leading to this Habeas Corpus Petition, in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner was the first accus...
Silambayee Vs. The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukkottai Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam to dispose of O.S.No.106 of 2014, pending on its file within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam to dispose of O.S.No.106 of 2014, pending on its file, within the period stipulated by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioners that the aforesaid suit was filed for issuance of legal heirship certificate as legal heirs of their deceased mother namely Pitchi, who is the first wife of their father Chelliah. Whileso, the sons and daughter of the second wife of Chelliah namely Ramasamy, Rengasamy, Chinnakaruppan and Janaki have objected to issue legal heirship certificate to the Petitioners and requested the first respondent to include them as legal heirs. Hence the Petitioner has fil...
The Secretary, Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Nayakkarapattty, Tirunel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 21.5.2003 passed in E.P.No.1 of 2003 in O.P.No.33 of 2002, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order, dated 21.05.2003 passed in E.P.No.1 of 2003 in O.P.No.33 of 2002, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner Bank is a co-operative Bank functioning under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The second respondent is the former employee of the Petitioner society. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.33 of 2002 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli and by order, dated 16.12.2002, the said Forum allowed the O.P and directed the revision petitioners to pay the Savin...
Joseph Vs. Janaki and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in E.P.No.30 of 2003, dated 31.3.2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in E.P.No.30 of 2003 in O.S.No.181 of 2001, dated 31.3.2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. 2. According to the Petitioner, the second respondent filed a suit against the third respondent in O.S.No.181 of 2001 for maintenance, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. The said suit was decreed and a charge was created upon the plaint schedule property and the third respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards arrears of maintenance and to pay a sum of Rs.1500-/ t...
S. Kandasamy Vs. The District Collector, Thuthukudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(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 records pertaining to the impugned order, in R.C.No.A4/2735/2016, dated 14.09.2016, passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to sanction an increment, taking into one year of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 and revise the pension to the petitioner.) 1. For the completed period of one year service, namely service from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008, whether it is necessary that the petitioner should be in service as on 01.07.2008, to claim increment for the services already completed / rendered, is the issue raised in this writ petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 14.09.2015, passed by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, declining increment in the pay. Brief facts:- 3.1. The petitioner joined as Village Adm...
A. Raisa Nasrin Vs. A.S. Bilal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the case in G.W.O.P.No.524 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for transfer of G.W.O.P.No.524 of 2016 from the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Family Court, Sivagangai. 2.The respective counsels both for the petitioner and the respondent are heard. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 27.12.2009 as per the Islamic rituals and customs. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 07.10.2010. 4.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent/ husband is a drunkard and was having a habit of torturing the petitioner and the child both physically and mentally. Further, he used to abuse the petitioner as well as her fam...
Thulasidasan Nair and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramanian and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Common Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of C.P.C. r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgement and decree passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2491 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015 by allowing the review applications.) Common Order: 1. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 filed a memo before this Court stating that a final decree was passed on 19.10.2016. Hence he would submit that the Review Applications have become infructuous. 2. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners has submitted that the interim stay granted by this Court in the above Civil Revision Petition. Pursuant to the order, the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli has passed the final decree on 19.10.2016. Therefore the final decree passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli is in flagrant violation of the interim order granted by this Court. On a perusal of the records, originally interim order was granted by this Court on 8.8.2016 for...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »