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.
A. Rajamony Vs. V. Azhakappan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order and decretal order made in I.A.No.591 of 2015 in O.S.No.261 of 2013, dated 22.12.2015, on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order and decretal order made in I.A.No.591 of 2015 in O.S.No.261 of 2013, dated 22.12.2015, on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil. 2. As per the provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, any order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C is an appealable order. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file appeal before the appellate Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M. Karuppiah Thevar (Died), K. Mariappan and Others Vs. John Victor
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.46 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and allow the Second Appeal throughout with cost.) 1. The defendants in the suit in O.S.No.46 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam are the appellants in the above second appeal. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, for permanent injunction restraining the appellants / defendants from in any way interfering with the respondent's / plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. 3. The suit property is an extent of eastern 31 cents out of 8 acres 52 cents in Survey No.6/1, Karadipatti Village, Madurai North Taluk. The suit property is described in the plaint with reference to four boundaries. 4. The case of the respondent / plaintiff is that t...
Gurunathan and Another Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Chinn ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 28.04.2014 made in S.C.No.120 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni.) Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Theni in S.C.No.120 of 2010 and to enhance the conviction and inadequate sentence order dated 28.04.2014 with regard to A1 and A2 and set aside the acquittal rendered in favour of the third accused.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J The appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.222 of 2015 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.120 of 2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni. There was yet another accused, by name, Mr.Vijayaraj. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11,2 and 3Section 120-B IPC21 and 2Section 302 IPC33...
N. Govindaraju Vs. The Chief Electoral Officer, State of Tamil Nadu, P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider on the petitioner's representation, dated 06.12.2012. and pass suitable orders thereon in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondentsto consider his representation, dated 06.12.2012, and pass suitable order on thereon in accordance with law. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law by the third respondent. 5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Peti...
Tamil Nadu Temple Technical Staffs Association Vs. The Commissioner, H ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in O.M.No.19299/06 of 5.4.07 of the fist respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to recover the house rent as per the G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998.) 1. When the matter was listed on 03.10.2016 for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, it was posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
S. Packirisamy Vs. G. Uthirapathy(died after suit) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(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 I.A.No341 of 2013 in O.S.No.191 of 2013, dated 3.9.2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No341 of 2013 in O.S.No.191 of 2013, dated 3.9.2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner had obtained an exparte order of interim injunction on 3.9.2013 in a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C and thereafter the matter was taken up on 3.11.2016 and the said application was closed, stating that the suit itself was ripe for trial. The trial Court has passed an cryptic order without assigning sufficient and valid reason and that the trial Court has to pass a well reasoned order in interlocutory applications. Hence a...
S. Soloman Raja Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in O.Mu.No.256/Thi.Va/2009 dated 15.02.2012, on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent No.2 to grant permission for the allotment of kiosk/coffee shop under the NAESEY Scheme in the campus of Government Hospital, Virudhunagar within the time frame stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to impugned order in O.Mu.No.256/Thi.Va/2009 dated 15.02.2012 on the file of the respondent No. 3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent No. 2 to grant permission for the allotment of kiosk/coffee. 2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner s application p...
A. Anbuchezhian Vs. The Co-operative Sub-Registrar Special Officer/Adm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(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 auction notice issued in R.R.A No.35/2011-2012 dated 27.03.2013 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.) M.V. Muralidaran, J 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
K. Sreedharan Nair Vs. V. Sreekumaran Nair
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil made in A.S.No.13 of 2005 on his file, confirming the judgements and decree dated 17.11.2004 of the learned I Additional District Munsif of Nagercoil made in O.S.No.450 of 2003 on his file.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.450 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. 2. This Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 in A.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2004 in O.S.No.450 of 2003 on the file of First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.450 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagercoil against the appellant herein for declaration that the appell...
R. Sethuraman Vs. The Commissioner of Fisheries, O/o. The Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.11509/F2/2016, dated 09.08.2016 on the file of the respondent No.1 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.829/#/2015, dated 19.08.2016 on the file of the respondent 3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction directing the respondents to either reimburse the sum of Rs.94,19,250/- (Ninety Four Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Rupees) spent by the petitioner for fish culture at Periyakulam Tank, Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District or to extend the lease period of the petitioner for a period of three years and to stop the discharge of sewage, drainage entering into Periyakulam Tank, Ayanppakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk Madurai District within a time period stipulated by this Court.) 1. The case of the petitioner in brief i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »