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.
M. Girija Vs. Kalisuresh
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court at Thoothukudi and to transfer the same to the file of the Additional Sub Court at Tirunelveli and tried along with H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court at Tirunelveli.) 1. Short facts as narrated by the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.11.2011 at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, as per the Hindu rites and customs. After two months, the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was strained and they were separated. Subsequently, the petitioner/wife filed HMOP.No.12 of 2015, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. The said case was adjourned for enquiry and the respondent also filed the counter affi...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Archana and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayers: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Thoothukudi. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C., in C.M.A. (MD)No.759 of 2005, against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Thoothukudi.) Common Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tuticorin. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the common Judgment and Decree, dated 29.09.2003, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Prin...
Sanjeevi and Others Vs. Kanthiri
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.347 of 2007 in O.S.No.1205 of 2004, dated 28.7.2016, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Civil Revision Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
Navamani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Home Secretary, Secretari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to withdraw the case in Crime No.155 of 2007 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.4, investigation of the case by a competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The writ petitioner has filed this writ petition for investigation of the murder of her son by a Competent Officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 2. That on 20.10.2007, the writ petitioner's son was murdered at Valliyoor Market. The Writ Petitioner suspected that one Ayyapillai and his henchmen Isairaja, Ruban, Manickam and Kannadi Manickam have attacked her son Udayasankar with deadly weapons and murdered him. 3. It is also informed that there was another complaint by the said Ayyapillai as the counterblast to her complaint. On 21.10.2007, the peti...
Rajan @ Colony Rajan Vs. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent in P.D.No.30/2016, dated 31.05.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Rajan @ Colony Rajan, Son of Velappan, aged about 35 years detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu viz., Mr.Rajan @ Colony Rajan, S/o.Velappan, aged about 35 years. He has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 31.05.2016, under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Goonda . Challenging the same, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3.Th...
K. Manivel Vs. State the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul, in S.S.C.No.2 of 2014 dated 06.08.2015.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.S.C.No.2 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. He stood charged for offences under Section 376(2)(1) IPC read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act). By judgment dated 06.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.2 is a girl child aged 14 years and 5 months. She is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3. They ...
Mayandi and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Ins ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.18 of 2013, dated 18.08.2014.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.152 of 2012 on the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The trial court framed charges under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused 1 and 3. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 17.12.2014 convicted the appellants/accused 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and further convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 341 of I P C to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against them, the present appeal has been filed by...
Rajathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent made in his proceedings Detention Order No.05/2016/C3, dated 23.06.2016, and quash the same and set the petitioner's husband, by name Rajangam, S/o.Mani, aged about 43 years at liberty from Central Prison, Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Rajangam, S/o.Mani, aged about 43 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 23.06.2016, under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Drug Offender . Challenging the same, she has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas ...
N. Soundar Rajan Vs. G. Senthamil Selvi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the O.S.No.126 of 2016 from the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and to transfer the same to the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, for further proceedings.) 1. The facts as stated by the petitioner in this petition is that the suit for partition is filed by the first respondent before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam in O.S.No.126 of 2016 and notice was served to the defendants in the suit. The defendants filed the written statement in the suit and the same is posted for framing issues. At this juncture, the second defendant in the suit filed the present petition to transfer the suit from the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam to the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner and the respondents are residing at Oddanchathram and the suit was unnecessarily instituted at Uthamapalayam by the first respondent o...
P. Mahalakshmi Vs. The District Educational Officer at Tirunelveli, Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order dated 11.03.2011 made in Neemu (A4)/39685/2009 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.) J. Nisha Banu 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order, dated 11.03.2011, passed by the second respondent, namely, the District Level Community Certificate Verification and Vigilance Committee, cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner's husband stating that the Certificate obtained by him was not a genuine one. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband A.Paramasivan was appointed as an Office Assistant in the Government High School, Palavoor, Tirunelveli District, in the year 1991. At the time of his appointment, the husband of the petitioner submitted a Community Certificate issued by the Tashildar, Nanguneri, Tir...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »