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.
D. Rosatty Vs. V. Victor Rajendran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer:Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P. No. 11 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the District Court, Tuticorin.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P. No. 11 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the District Court, Tuticorin. 2. The respective counsel both for the petitioner and the respondent are heard. 3. The facts narrated in short by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19.09.2013 as per the Christian Rites and customs and due to the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent/husband filed I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2016 before the Family Court, Dindigul, which is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is living with her parents at Tuticorin and she...
R. Krishnasamy Vs. The District Collector Kancheepuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action to protect the public water body called Kuttai , Porkovil Kuttai and Kannukovil Kuttai in Survey No.29/1 in Neikkuppi Village in Thirukkazhukundram Taluk of Kancheepuram District from being encroached upon in any way by the 6threspondent or anybody else.) 1. The petitioner, claiming to be a resident of Neikkuppi Village, seeks to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 3, being the State Government, to take appropriate action to (3) protect the public water body called Kuttai , Porkovil Kuttai and Kannukovil Kuttai in Survey No.29/1 in Neikkuppi Village in Thirukkazhukundram Taluk of Kancheepuram District, alleged to have been encroached upon by the sixth respondent. 2.1. The prayer has been couched in the aforesaid terms, but the story which emer...
Nisha Parveen Vs. A. Anwarlal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer :Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in O.S.No.103 of 2016, pending before the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur and transfer the same to any of the competent Court at Dindigul.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed to withdraw the case in O.S.No.103 of 2016, pending before the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur and transfer the same to any of the competent Court at Dindigul. 2. The petitioner states that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.08.2015 as per the Hindu Rites and customs and due to the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent/husband filed O.S.No.103 of 2016 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur seeking relief for declaration and for permanent injunction. Under these circumstances, the petitioner/wife filed this petition, seeking transfer of the case from the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur to any of the competent...
Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Madurai Represented through it ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and ex-orders dated 28.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.739/2010 in O.S.No.14/2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthram.) Order: 1. The civil revision petition arises against the fair and ex-orders dated 28.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.739/2010 in O.S.No.14/2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthram. 2. The revision petitioners being the Central Bank of India, who are the Creditors, are the defendants in the suit. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2010 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to declare the sale proceedings of the Bank as null and void. The respondent herein stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the borrower M/s.Marvellous Marketting and she mortgaged her property. Since the borrower has not repaid the loan, the bank issued demand notice dated 23.07.2007 under Section...
R. Sankarapandi Vs. The Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation, Thoothukudi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to register the death of the petitioner's wife viz., S.Jeyasri Selvi, aged 49, in the register of Births and Deaths on the file of the first respondent.) 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent / The Commissioner, Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation, Thoothukudi, to register the death of his wife, namely, S.Jeyasri Selvi, aged about 49 years, in the register of Births and Deaths maintained by them. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a native of Thoothukudi and also owns a house at Plot No. 46, Siva Bhavanam, Abirami Nagar, Muthiahpuram Post, Thoothukudi. However, due to his employment with M/s.Baby Marine Eastern Exports, he took a house for rent at Door No.17/52-19, Bye pass road, Mandapam, Ramnad District. While he was living with his wife in the ...
K. Kuvendran Vs. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Ho ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 25.08.2006 in his order No.122.Esst/20(3)/2006/0392-591 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of BSF as Constable with all monetary benefits) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 25.08.2006 in his order No.122.Esst/20(3)/2006/0392-591 and seeking a direction to the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of BSF as Constable with all monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner joined Border Security Force as Constable on 08.12.2002 and was given training at Rajasthan and posted at West Bengal. He was sanctioned Earned Leave for 60 days from 04.01.2006 to 04.03.2006. But he failed to join duty on the expiry of leave period. On request, his leave was extended by the thir...
T. Raja Meiyappan Vs. Sridharan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Madurai Town to expedite the trial in R.C.O.P.No.191 of 2014, on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Madurai Town to expedite the trial in R.C.O.P.No.191 of 2014, on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2.The Petitioner herein filed R.C.O.P.No.191 of 2014 praying for eviction against the respondents herein for alternative use, sub-letting, waste and devaluation of property, nuisance and own use and to deliver the petition mentioned property to the Petitioner herein. The respondents herein has not filed the written statement for the past two years and hence the R.C.O.P is pending without any progress. While-so, the Petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.10 of 2016 before this...
Jamuna Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw G.W.O.P.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Trichy, to be tried along with M.C.No.118 of 2015.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that she married the respondent on 13.09.2007 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Karur. The respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and the petitioner filed Maintenance Case No.118 of 2015 before the Family Court, Trichy. The petitioner has stated that she has got two sons aged 6 years and 3 years respectively, and both are school going at Trichy. After filing of the maintenance claim petition, the respondent wantonly filed GWOP.No.21 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Karur, seeking custody of children. This apart, the petitioner is living with the support of her parents and unemployed. Hence, she is not in a position to spend for conducting the case at Karur. 2. The learned co...
M .Mathivanan Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to settle the petitioner's earned leave salary of Rs.1,18,278/- for 92 days from 2011-2016 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's earned leave salary of Rs.1,18,278/- for 92 days from 2011-2016 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the 1st respondent Corporation as Junior Tradesman with effect from 01.05.1988 and after periodical promotion, he was promoted as Technical Level -5 and retired from service on 31.03.2016; that his earned leave salary of approximately Rs.1,18,278/- (for 92 days) has not been disbursed to...
Kirubanandan and Others Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence, dated 13.12.2013, made in S.C.No. 101 of 2013, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The trial Court has framed as many as four charges against them as detailed below: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 to A5U/s.147 IPC2A4 and A5U/s.341 IPC3A1 to A3U/s.302 r/w 149 IPC4A4 and A5U/s.302 r/w 149 IPC 2. By judgment dated 13.12.2013, the trial Court convicted all the five accused under the respective charges and sentenced them as detailed below; AccusedConvictionSentenceA1 to A5U/s.147 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 2 yearsA4 and A5U/s.341 IPCSimple Imprisonment for 1 monthA1 to A3U/s.302 r/w 149 IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a furth...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »