Chennai Madurai Court September 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.
Kannadasan and Another Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.101 and 102 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012, dated 10.2.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram.) 1. These revisions have been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.101 and 102 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012, dated 10.2.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. The respondent herein, who is the brother of the first Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of 2012, on the file of Sub-Court, Ambasamudram against the first petitioner herein/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- based on the promissory note, dated 1.3.2012. 4. The Petitioners herein/defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of promissory note and loan transaction. Therefore in t...
Alagudurai Singam Vs. R. Prabhakaran and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions 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.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3.The Petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Melur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff as tenant except under due process of law and for costs. When the suit is pending, the respondents herein filed an application u...
Muthuraman Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2014 made in S.C.No.210 of 2013, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.210 of 2013 on the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. The trial court framed charges under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 14.3.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further convicted the appellant under section 294(b) of I.P.C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused M...
A. Muthukumaran and Another Vs. Devi Meenakshi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.852 of 2015 seeking divorce from the respondent. The said H.M.O.P was filed on 9.10.2015.The respondent has also entered appearance in the month of December 2015. Till now, no counter has been filed. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present revision to dispose of the H.M.O.P at an early date. 4. Admittedly, the respondent has not chosen to file counter affidavit, as on today. Once the counter is filed, thereafter the matter may be taken up for final disp...
Mathiya Manila Arasu SC (Arunthathiyar) Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Manon ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned advertisement on the file of the Respondent No.2, dated 22.07.2016 published in the official website of the 2nd respondent University and quash the same as illegal in so far earmarking a new category of Schedule Caste (Priority) SC (P) in the place of Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) SC(A) and for a direction forbearing the respondents from filling up the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate professors, Professors reserved for SC (A) Category with the persons not belonging to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) category and for a direction, directing the respondents to follow the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including private Educational Institutions and of appointments of posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Schedule...
Dominic Xavier James Vs. Kavin Marry
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014, on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli Within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014, on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli Within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. It is seen from the affidavit that the marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.06.2005 according to Christian rites and customs. Due to difference of opinion, the respondent herein filed I.D.O.P.No.265 of 2012 before the District Court, Thoothukudi on 02.07.2012. The respondent entered appearance on 07.09.2012 and filed her counter on 22.02.2013. In-spite of counter being filed, the Court below has adjourned the matter from time-...
S. Pathmanaman Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in G.O.(Ms)No.206, Law (Administration) Department, dated 26.06.2015 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner is a practising Advocate Aranthangi. On 03.04.1987, the petitioner was appointed as Notary by the Government of Tamil Nadu and his Certificate of Notary has been periodically renewed and it is valid up to 26.01.2017. On 16.12.2011, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation with regard to certain misconduct. The above notice said to have been issued based on a complaint received from the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, dated 22.11.2011 alleging that the petitioner has put his official signature and Notary seal in an affidavit sworn to by one Mrs.Mumtaj Begum and Mr.Abubakar dated 12.10.2011 in which one of the...
Pandi @ Thangapandi and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.210 of 2015 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.148 of 2015 is the third accused in S.C.No.59 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Karur. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Kumar @ Vijayakumar. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges against all the three accused. The first charge was under Section 302 read with 34 (2 counts) IPC and the second charge was under Section 380 read with 34 IPC. By Judgment, dated 12.06.2015, the Trial Court convicted all the three accused under both the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count (totally two counts), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 (2 counts) I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo si...
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer in C.M.A.(MD) No.295 of 2004: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.607 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.) Common Order: These civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the insurance company against the common award passed by the Tribunal dated 07.062004 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.607, 608, 666, 699, 700 and 889 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant, who is the insurance company in all the appeals, has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. According to the claimants/respondent No.1 in each appeal, they have filed separate M.C.O.Ps., under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for compensation against the appellant insurance company and the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle. It is stated t...
Eugeen Jose Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Colachal Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethimandram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in S.C.No.114 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.114/2012 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Sessions Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 364, 211, 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 31.03.2015, the trial Court convicted him only under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him from the other charges. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Poongodi. She was already married to o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »