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.
Thangaraj Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the judgment dated 23.12.2014 made in S.C.No.40 of 2013, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and set aside the same.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.40/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The trial court framed charges under Section 302, 449 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 23.12.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 449 of I.P.C to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The set off was allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence ...
The Madurai Diraviyam Thayumanavar Hindu College rep.by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.26627/G3/2006-2, dated 07.01.2008, the proceeding of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.01060/E1/2008, dated 12.03.2008, and consequential proceedings of the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.9194/E1/2009, dated 24.11.2009, and quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the fourth respondent as Stenographer from the date of his appointment in the petitioner's College with effect from 07.01.2008 and to regularize his services in the post of Stenographer with effect from the date of his initial appointment on 07.01.2008 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. The writ petitioner is an aided College. The post of Stenographer in the petitioner College fell vacant in the year 2003. The second respnodent, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.17378/F2/2007, dated 1...
Neethi Match Factory, Represented by its Prop.Mr.Martin Charles, Tirun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 15.07.2016 made in W.P.(MD) Nos.12414 and 12415 of 2016.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, both Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner is the appellant in both appeals. The petitioner is proprietorship concern. It is also registered under the Tamilnadu VAT Act 2006 and Central Sales TAX Act, 1956(TNVAT and CST). The petitioner claims that it is a manufacturer and dealer in Venneers and the TIN number is 336765942039. It was obtained by his father in his name and his father was running the business and some time thereafter, he left separtely. The petitioner has also been furnished new Tin No.33446340691 on 09.10.2015 and as on today carrying on the business. The petitioner would state that though new Tin number was obtained in his name, the business was carried on by his father. Therefore, he was not aware of the affairs relating to the...
G. Kothandaraman Vs. D. Kesavan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.147 of 2014 in A.S.No.113 of 2012, dated 22.4.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.147 of 2014 in A.S.No.113 of 2012, dated 22.4.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2. According to the Petitioner, that the revision petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2009 for declaration and for mandatory injunction in respect of the second schedule of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and the said application was allowed and the Commissioner has submitted his report along with sketch before the trial Court. The respondent has objected for the measurem...
Rakkiappa Gounder and Another Vs. A. Karthikeyan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.301 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District -cum-Sessions Court, Tiruppur.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.301 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruppur granting preliminary decree as prayed for in the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows : (i) The total extent in S.F.No.47 of Thekkalur village is 10.82 acres and S.F.No.49 is 7.90 acres. Both SF Numbers were subdivided as S.F.No.47/1 and 47/2 and S.F.No.49/1 to 49/5. Originally one Muthusamy Gounder, Kaliappa Gounder and Palanisamy acquired the property by virtue of various sale deeds in 1956 and 1960. Their legal heirs conveyed their shares in the said properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into a Deed of Exchange on 14.05.2007 with R...
Ramanathan and Another Vs. Rengasamy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the revision Petitioners, the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2009, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the revision petitioners from doing the Thiruppani Work and by judgement and decree, dated 31.3.2015, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.19 of 2015 before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. In the aforesaid appeal suit, the ...
Kumar and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, E. Pudur P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 13.08.2014, made in S.C.No.195 of 2013, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli District.) 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.195 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division. Including these appellants, there were a total number of ten accused. The trial Court framed as many as five charges against them as detailed below: Charge NoAgainstOffence U/s.1A1 to A5147 and 148 IPC2A1 to A9341 IPC3A1 to A9302 IPC4A1 to A2307 IPC5A10302 r/w 114 IPC 2. By judgment dated 13.08.2014, the trial Court acquitted the accused 5 to 10 from all the charges, however, convicted the appellants/A1 to A4 alone under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and acquitted them from the other charges. The trial Court sentenced these appellants/A1 to A4 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to under...
Er.Shunmugaraj Vs. S. Chandramohan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to dispose of the suit in I.S.No.100 of 2011 on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to dispose of the suit in I.S.No.100 of 2011 on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein in respect of the suit schedule property. The above said suit was filed on 1.6.2011.The Petitioner also filed a detailed written statement on 21.11.2011.Thereafter, issues were framed on 11.1.2013 and posted for appearance of the par...
Meenakumari Vs. Vikram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai.) 1. The present petition has been filed stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 10.03.2003 at Nayudu Mahal, Dindigul, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 04.12.2003. There was a frequent quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent, more specifically on the ground that the respondent has involved in some religious practices and running an Ashramam in Sukampatti Village, Karumalai, Vedachandur, and the respondent is intentionally avoiding the petitioner and the child. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No.66 of 2016 before the Family Court, Dindigul. So also, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.508 of 201...
Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Oyvupetra Thozhilalar Vs. The General Manager, Ti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle and disbursement of commutation of pension and leave salaries together with interest at current market rate of 12% for the entire money to the 42 retired persons listed in para 8 of the affidavit and also specified in letter dated 15.03.2009.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Association would submit that the members of the petitioner Association have already received the benefits from the respondent Corporation. The dispute regarding the interest alone is pending before the respondent Corporation. 2. In view of the above settlement made by the respondent Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition may be closed giving liberty to agitate the claim of interest before the respondent Corporation. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed giving libert...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »