Chennai Madurai Court June 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.
Durai Murugadoss Vs. T. Muthumala and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records in M.C.No.39 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 26.10.2015 and set aside the same.) 1. Actually, this revision is by a father as against his daughter, because he wants this Court to reduce the maintenance amount to his daughter. 2. The daughter is fortunate because her father as well as her mother are employed. Her father is holding B.P.T.Degree. Her mother is employed in a Bank. 3. Considering their respective contentions, while dismissing the claim of maintenance by the second respondent, the Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the daughter / 2nd respondent herein. 4. Dispute arose between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is a family dispute. Now, the child is in the custody of her mother. She is a school going child. 5. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the child can seek maintenance from his / her fat...
C. Manickam Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Tuticorin ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 13.3.2012, pending before him.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, there is a dispute between himself and one Duraipandy regarding the identification of the property in question. It is the stand of the Petitioner that in the partition between Duraipandy and his brother Paulraj, 2.25 acres adjoining to his property was allotterd to Duraipandy. In this regard, the Petitioner had given a representation to the first respondent/The District Collector, Thoothukudi District on 2.5.2011 to survey his property and for sub-division.There is no response from the first respondent. Therefore, he sent a letter under Right to Information Act, on 21.9.2011 seeking the result of the Petition....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. According to the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned circular of the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli is highly arbitrary, illegal, void, without jurisdiction and also an unconstitutional one. 3. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the third respondent/Vice Chancellor of the University had appointed a Committee and Inspection Commission of his choice in a clandestine manner in the absence of any statutory powers and therefore, the same is an illegal and void one. 4. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, had failed to consider the fact that only the Syndicate has power to appoint sub-Committee and constitute inspection commission for the purpose of granting affiliation to the colleges. 5. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitione...
K. Leelavathi and Others Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Boar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, more particularly, the third respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 18.12.2014 given to the respondents forthwith.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Shanthi and Others Vs. Karbaga Lakshmi Fabric, Proprietor, K. Rajendra ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 11.03.2016, made in Cr.M.P.Nos.823 of 2016 in C.C.No.286 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and to set aside the same by allowing this criminal revision petition.) 1. A3 to A5 in C.C.No.286 of 2015, challenges dismissal of the Cr.M.P.No.823 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 2. A1 to A5 are being prosecuted before the said Magistrate in the said calendar case for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A1 is company, A2 to A5 are natural persons. Among them A2 is a head of the family, A3 to A5 are his wife, son and daughter respectively. 3. A3 to A5 have filed Crl.M.P.No.823 of 2016 under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking dispense with their personal appearance before the Court. 4. The learned Magistrate dismissed their petition ...
V. Pandian Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta copy in his name for the punja land situated in S.No.128/4 at Padamathoor Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District having an extent of 0.32.5 ares I.e., 80 cents on considering the Petitioner's representation dted 25.4.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he had obtained Patta Transfer Order in his favour on 28.05.2007 and the said order was passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagnagai District. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he made a representation, dated 25.4.2016 addressed to the second respondent/The Tahsildar, seeking for issuance of patta in his name in respect of S.No.128/4, Punja land, situated at padamathoor Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District for 80 cents out of 0.32.5 ...
R. Ramesh Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1104 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District and set aside the order, dated 20.04.2016 and handover the custody of vehicle viz., Lorry (Bharath Benz/Multi Axle Goods Vehicle) bearing Registration No.TN88 B1194 remanded in R.P.R.No.32 of 2016, which has been seized by the respondent herein in Crime No.94 of 2016.) 1. This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)]. 2. The property in a criminal case will arise in three different circumstances. One is the property with respect to which an offence has been committed, namely, chain snatching case. Other one is the property, which has been used in the commission of offence, for instance vehicle used by the assailants to commit murder and the other one is perishable items. If they have any rel...
M. Perumal Vs. Bharati
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order, dated 22.09.2015 made in M.C.No.8 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, set aside the same by allowing the present criminal revision petition.) 1. In this revision, an husband challenges the grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- ordered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli to the respondent. 2. Earlier, the revision petitioner and the respondent were spouses. Now, by a Court order, they have become no longer spouses, because their marriage was dissolved by the Family Court. Now, they have become Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife. But, as per Section 125 Cr.P.C., dissolution of marriage will not exonerate the husband from paying maintenance to his ex-wife. 3. The revision petitioner is a car driver. Taking note of the materials produced, Rs.6,000/- has been ordered as maintenance. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the peti...
V.P. Rukmaniammal Vs. The State, Represented by The District Collector ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 9.5.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that her representation, dated 9.5.2016 addressed to the respondents 1 to 5 is still pending and the same is not yet disposed of. In the said representation, the Petitioner has sought for change of classification of Poramboke Sengulam Kanmai( in S.No.63(New S.No.373/1) and to grant patta in her favour. 4. At this stage, this Court without going into the merits of the matter and also not expressing any opinion one way or other on the contents of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 9.5.2016, at this stage, simpliciter, in the interest of justice, directs the 5th rspondent/The Tahsildar, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar to look...
Balasubramaniam Vs. Karthikeyan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the award dated 10.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Subordinate Court), Karur and to allow this appeal.) 1. This appeal is directed against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.296 of 2003, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge, Karur, dated 10.06.2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.2002 at 7.30 p.m., the first respondent/claimant was driving an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TTY-7563 from west to east direction on Karur-Trichy Bye-pass road. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TST-4121 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the auto rickshaw. Alleging that the driver of the said lorry is responsible for the accident, he preferred a claim for Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The third respondent/insurance company resiste...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »