Chennai Madurai Court March 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.
Lingam and Others Vs. State through, The Inspector of Police, Dindigul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the Principal District Judge Court (PCR), Dindigul to accept the petitioners' surrender and consider the petitioners' bail application.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the Principal District Judge Court (PCR), Dindigul to accept the petitioners' surrender and consider the petitioners' bail application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 354, 494, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.7 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioners cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioners have come forward with the said prayer. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the respondent. 4. Considering the submissions of both sides and also conside...
Vijayalakshmi, D/o.Alagappa Chettiar and Another Vs. -------
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal Order, dated 18.02.2016, passed in I.A.No.45 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2016, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.) 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of dismissal, dated 18.02.2016, in I.A.No.45 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.4 of 2016 by the Revision Petitioners, to dispense with six months period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The marriage between the first and second petitioners was solemnized on 27.11.2014. Difference of opinion have arisen between them and therefore, it became impossible for them to live as husband and wife in spite of the advice of the elders. Therefore, they filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.4 of 2016 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce, by mutual consent. The said H.M.O.P. is posted to 12.07.2016, for enquiry. The petitioners...
The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. P. Kannammal and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2004 passed in MACOP. No.4 of 2003 on the file fothe Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Vairamuthu and Others Vs. The District Registrar (Administration) Regi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.883/Aa1/E1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.883/Aa1/E1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same. 2. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The impugned order is passed in an under enquiry under Circular 67 of the Inspector General of Registration dated 03.11.2011. The authority has carefully considered and found out that there is an impersonation in respect of the registration and therefore, referred to ...
Ganesan and Another Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the learned Principal and District Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Sivagangai to consider the bail application of the petitioners on the same day of their surrender pending investigation in connection with the FIR in Crime No.26 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned Principal and District Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Sivagangai to consider the bail application of the petitioners on the same day of their surrender pending investigation in connection with the FIR in Crime No.26 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.26 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of t...
G. Anbalagan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in S.C.No. 391 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and quash the same as against the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records in S.C.No. 391 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and quash the same as against the petitioner. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect, with liberty to move the Sessions Court for discharge. 3. In view of the above submission and endorsement made, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Sessions Court for discharge, provided charges are not framed....
Mercy Vs. P. Selvakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw and transfer the case in HMOP.No.1156 of 2015 pending on the file Family Court, Chennai to Sub Court, Madurai.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Transfer CMP is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Raja Vs. The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Pudkkott ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely, Adal padal scheduled to be held on 03.04.2016 at night in connection with Poochorithal Festival in Arulmigu Sri Vettaikattu Mariamman Kovil at Meputhagudi Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2016.) This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely, Adal padal scheduled to be held on 03.04.2016 at night in connection with Poochorithal Festival in Arulmigu Sri Vettaikattu Mariamman Kovil at Meputhagudi Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct Adal Padal on 03.04.2016...
Veerammal Vs. The Tahsildar, Karur District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to Survey the land in old Survey No.245/1 in new Survey No.527/1 at Mela Theru, Telungapatti Porunthalur Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District sub-divided the same and issue patta in favour of the petitioner and her three sisters namely Maryaee, Maruthayee and Pattu, pursuant to the representation dated 20.11.2015 of the petitioner herein and the proceedings of the respondent dated 28.12.2015 and the reply of the petitioner dated 11.03.2016.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to Survey the land in old Survey No.245/1 in new Survey No.527/1 at Mela Theru, Telungapatti Porunthalur Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District sub-divided the same and issue patta in favour of the petitioner and her three sisters namely Maryaee, Maruthayee and Pattu, pursuant to the representation dated 20.11.2...
Sukumaran Vs. Madhava Shastri (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2, r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014, passed in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009 on the file of this Court.) 1. This Review Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014, passed in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009. 2. The review petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009 and first defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2007. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 2 and 3. One Madhava Shastri, the first respondent and the fourth respondent herein, filed the abovesaid suit, for injunction, restraining the review petitioner/1st defendant in the suit and the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 3. Facts of the case: (i) Ganapathi Iyer, who was the father of Madhava Shastri, the first respondent herein and his brother Vasudevan, was the owner of the suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »