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.
The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Company, Dharmapuri Distric ...
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 20.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 429 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.429 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant/Insurance Company is the third respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants and the fourth respondent/rider of the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle is the first respondent and the fifth respondent/owner of the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.429 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai. The responden...
V. Ganesan Vs. A. Meenal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree dated 05.12.2014 made in A.S.No.109 of 2012 on the file of sub-Court, Sivagangai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.09.2012 made in O.S.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Siavagangai.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in the above second appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the appellant that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's mother, one Oyyammal D/o.Periyakaruppan. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was given to her mother as Stridhana by her father. Since the patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff's mother, the reven...
Tavidan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 25.06.2015, made in S.C.No.55 of 2015, by the learned II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.) 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. There were two other accused by name Krishnasamy and Paulraj, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused as under: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 to A3U/s.341 IPC2A2 and A3U/s.294(b) IPC3(a) A2 and A3U/s.302 r/w 109 IPC (b) A1U/s.302 IPC 2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 25.6.2015, convicted the first accused under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month...
Senthilkumar and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 27.10.2014, made in S.C.No.347 of 2010, by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.347 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused as under: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 and A2U/s.498-A IPC2A1U/s.302 IPC3A2U/s.302 r/w 34 IPC 2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 27.10.2014, convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under ...
S. Vijayakumar Vs. The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu Election Co ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent not to change the post of Chairman of Paravai Town Panchayat now under General category into Scheduled Tribe category by considering the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 21.09.2016, within the time period stipulated by this Court.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent not to change the post of Chairman of Paravai Town Panchayat, now under General category into Scheduled Tribe category, by considering the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 21.09.2016, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of No.42, Amman Kovil Street, Oormechikulam, Paravai Town Panchayat, Madurai North Taluk. He is a socially conscious person involving himself in common issues affecting the public in general and belongs to general category in terms ...
S. Durairaj Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment dated 09.10.2015, made in S.C.No. 216 of 2011, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Thoothukudi. S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.216 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 09.10.2015, the Trial Court convicted the accused only under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 450 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of t...
Senthilkumar Vs. Krishnaveni
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 learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai to dispose of the case in H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible.) 1. The revision petitioner has filed the above C.R.P praying this Court to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai to dispose of the case in H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible. 2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24.10.2007 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, due to difference of opinion, the respondent had filed H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2012 for divorce before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai. The said divorce petition was filed in the month of June 2012.The respondent had also filed a counter affidavit in the month of August 2014 and for the last four years, the said H.M.O.P has been pending before the Court below...
Valliappan Vs. State, Rep by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 17.12.2014 made in S.C.No. 105 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No. 105 of 2011, on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 17.12.2014, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant, as detailed below:- AccusedSection of LawSentenceFine amount1302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for lifeRs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2404 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follo...
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vannarape ...
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 28.03.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Ambasamudram.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Ambasamudram. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant is the first respondent and the respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants and the sixth respondent/driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Ambasamudram. The respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2009 against the appellant and the sixth respondent, claiming a sum of Rs.95,67,160...
C. Ramesh Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for impugned selection list published by the 1st respondent dated 04.07.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to redrawn the selection list for the post of Director of Physical Education with eligible candidates.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned selection list dated 04.07.2016 of the 1st respondent for the post of Director of Physical Education with consequential direction to the 1st respondent to redraw the selection list for the post of Director of Physical Education with eligible candidates. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed B.A.Economics in the year 2000, B.PEd in 2003 and M.PEd in 2005 and M.Phil in 2006 in addition to completion of Ph.D. and NET examination; that before the petitioner acquired the qualification of NET, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »