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.
Chandran and Another Vs. Senthurpandian and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 106 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil.) 1. This appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. 2. The appellants are petitioners in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Sankarankovil. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.289 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. The respondents are defendants in the suit. Respondents in I.A.No.144 of 2015, first appeal and CMA. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: (i) The appellants filed O.S.No.289 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil for a declaration that suit properties are their absolute properties and for permanent injunction re...
C. Gani Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to instruct the second respondent to consider the representation dated 21.07.2015 submitted by Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and in consequence to dispose of the first respondent's letter No.Na.Ka.Aa.2/711/2015, dated 28.07.2015 for issuing patta to the Petitioner's house in Survey No.179/1C.) 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 is residing in his own house bearing S.No.179/1C, V.Nangoor, Kariaptti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, for the past 15 years. Before constructing his house, he had resided in a mud wall roofed house for more than 50 years on the same house-site. Apart from that, his fore-fathers were staying in the same house for more than 100 years. As the house-site of the Petitioner's house is a 'Grama Natham...
K. Karuppasamy Vs. The District Registrar, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for records relating to the General power of Attorney dated 15.12.2011 bearing document number 1552 of 2011 in Book 4 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition, which runs as under: As the deed which is sought to be quashed has been quashed by the 1st and 2nd respondents by order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed. No costs....
The Manager,Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Thahirabanu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims (Addl.District Judge) Ramanathapuram, and allow this appeal.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company calling in question the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011. 2. The relevant facts are that on 14th September 2009, at about 6.00 a.m, the deceased, who was working with one of the local Colleges at Adirampattinam, as a Professor in Chemistry was proceeding on his two wheeler when the offending vehicle, a Tipper lorry (earth moving vehicle) caused the fatal accident, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. The deceased was in prime of his life as by the time of his premature death he was of 46 years age. His wife and his three children...
A. Arulappan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(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 survey the Petitioner's lands and fix boundary stones in respect of Survey No.157, situated at Morpatti Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he purchased the landed property in S.NO.157, situated at Morpatti Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District, measuring an extent of 2,200 sq.ft by means of registered sale deed, dated 25.11.1999, vide document No.1988/1999 from its lawful owners. From the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question with absolute rights. Indeed, the Petitioner gave the land measuring an extent of 144 s.meters for the extension of N.H.45 to the Government and the remaining portion of the land i...
R. Dhayalan Vs. The Inspector of Police (Crime)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent to secure the accused persons in Crime No.253 of 2014 pending on the file of the respondent police within time bound stipulated by this Court.) 1. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. So cautioned the Supreme Court in the case of Joginer Singh vs. State of U.P., 1994 (4) SCC 260 This is a petition, seeking a direction to the respondent to secure the accused person in Crime No.253 of 2014, which has been registered in respect of offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The sum and substance of the allegation is that...
Dharmaraj Vs. State Rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.A.No.11 of 2013 by Judgment dated 08.12.2014, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned District Munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in C.C.No.14 of 2009, dated 18.09.2012 set aside the Judgments of the Courts below.) 1. This revision by the accused is to challenge the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded to him in C.C.No.14 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, as confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in CA.No.11 of 2013. 2. Before the trial Court the revision petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 379 IPC. To establish the charge prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P1 to P7 and exhibited M.O.1. 3. Relying on the said evidence, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 379 of...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. 2. It appears that the copy of the original order passed by the second respondent was filed before the Office of the first respondent together with revision petition. As such, the petitioner has projected the instant writ petition with the aid of xerox copy of the order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010. 3. Viewed in that perspective, the production of original impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010, is dispensed with for the present. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed....
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Minor Adithi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the common judgment and decree, dated 29.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975, 978, 977 and 976 of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy.) Cross Objections are filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., to modify the judgment and decree, dated 29.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975 and 976 of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy, by awarding enhanced compensation.) Common Judgment 1. All the four appeals arise out of common Judgment dated 29.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975 to 978 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum FTC-I, Trichy. 2. The claimants filed petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 03.02.2001. The claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos. 975 and 976 of 2001 filed Cross Objection (MD) Nos.20 and 21 of 2014 in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.585...
Suresh Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.04.2013.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the matter was enquired into and there is a compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the proposed accused. The copy of the statement recorded in the Police Station is also produced. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the terms of compromise was not carried into effect and that the proposed accused is trying to disobey the terms of compromise. 5. This Court is of the view that if the terms of compromise is not respect...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »