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.
B. Vanajakshi and Others Vs. A. Parthiban and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed u/s.25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007 made in R.C.A.No.34 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, reversing the judgment of learned Rent Controller, Nagercoil, passed in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 on 01.09.2005. 1. This revision is preferred against the judgment of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, passed in R.C.A.No.34 of 2005 on 14.02.2007. 2. It is the case of petitioners/landlords that the they are owners of non-residential building situated at Balamore Road, Nagercoil, bearing Door No.113, which was leased to respondents/tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. Respondents/tenants have paid rent by cash till November 1993 and thereafter, they have paid rent by cheque till June 2000. Since July 2000, there is wilful default in payment of rent. Respondents/tenants have also made some alterations in to the rented premises and sub-let th...
Mary Vs. The State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Murugan S/o.Narayanan, aged about 33 years old, petitioner's minor son Vijay S/o.Murugan, aged about 3 years old, petitioner's sister Mariyammal W/o.Guruvan, aged about 28 years old and petitioner's sister's husband Guruvan S/o.Mariappan aged about 36 years old before this Court and set them at liberty.) 1. The petitioner is the wife of one Mr.Murugan S/o.Narayanan, aged about 33 years and mother of one Vijay S/o.Murugan, aged about 3 years. She is the sister of one Mrs.Mariyammal, aged about 28 years. Mr.Guruvan S/o.Mariyappan is the husband of Mrs.Mariyammal. He is aged about 36 years. 2. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Mottamalai, Kalaingar Nagar, Vilacheri, Madurai District, along with her husband and two children by name Karthick, aged about 6 years and Vijay, a...
Murugesan Vs. Sathiyavathi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Family Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Family Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 before the Family Court, Madurai for divorce. The said H.M.O.P was filed in the year 2015 and the same is pending. The above said H.M.O.P has been adjourned time to time for filing counter by the Petitioner herein. Admittedly, as on today, the Petitioner herein has not filed the counter affidavit before the trial Court in the said H.M.O.P and he undertakes to file the counter affidavit at an early date. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no chance for the re-union with the respondent by the Petitioner. The revision Petitioner's intention is to ...
P. Sivasubramanian Vs. N.N.P. Suriya Narayana Raja and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.) Common Order 1. These Revisions have been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the original suit in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur against the Petitioner's deceased father Palraj, for recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioners deceased father has filed a written statement on 12.11.2009 stating that the entire suit allegation levelled against the Sitha Samaaja Karthikai Vizha Committee, Rajapalayam and they are the necessa...
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co., Vs. Jayanthi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 33 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent and the first respondent is the claimant and the second respondent/owner of the bus is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Theni. The first respondent filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 against the appellant and the second respondent claiming a sum of Rs.11,...
Lenin and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Theni
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment and Conviction dated 31.07.2015 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam in S.C.No.116 of 2013 and acquit the Appellants.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants two in numbers, who were tried for the offence under sections 341, 302, 506(ii) and 341, 302 R/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC respectively. After full trial the learned Trail Court by its Judgment dated 31.07.2015, the 2 accused were found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 302 R/w 34 of IPC. As the accused/appellants found guilty, the learned Trail court imposed life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC., and also imposed fine of Rs 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months of rigorous imprisonment is imposed upon the 1st Appellant. As for as the 2nd appellant is concerned, he was also imposed similar punishment as imposed upon the 1st Appell...
Perumal Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 22.09.2016, passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would submit among other things that out of 82 Cents comprised in Survey Nos.1748/1B and 1748/2A of Andipatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, he had purchased a portion of 42 Cents on the western side of the said land, under a registered Sale Deed, dated 16.04.1992, from the family members of one Athiappan Servai and he has also obtained Patta in his name vide Patta Nos.2088 and 2618 and he has been paying necessary...
Kanagu and Another Vs. Daniel John and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the docket order dated 7.9.2016 and to direct the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi to number the unnumbered O.S.No....of 2016.) 1. This revision is filed against the docket order, dated 7.9.2016 and to direct the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi to number the unumbered O.S.No....of 2016. 2. The revision petitioners herein has filed a suit for partition and for separate possession of the suit property. The Subordinate court, Thoothukudi has returned the plaint on 15/9/2015 stating as follows: Returned: 1. How the suit is maintainable to be stated. Since partition asked to the purchaser, not to the co-sharer is to be stated. 2. Court fee paid to be corrected. 3. Fresh docket sheet to be attached Represented one month. 3. Again on 23.09.2015, the plaint was represented. After several returns and representations, the plaint was finally returned on 7.9.2016 stating that: Return...
Harichandran Vs. M. Kanagaraj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition 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.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi dated 15.3.2016.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, dated 15.03.2016, filed under Order 18 Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code, to scrap the chief examination of P.W.1. 2. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court without adverting to the scope of Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. The learned Rent Controller has completely over-looked the fact that the person who has now filed the proof affidavit is totally a stranger to the proceedings and the purpose for examining the third party is not for any genuine reason, but only to fill up the lacunae, at a later stage while ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Madurai Vs. S. Gnanaprakasam and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants and the fifth respondent/owner of the lorry is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge - Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »