Chennai Court January 2013 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.
Bagavathi Ammal Vs. Vimala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.37 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 Bagavathi Ammal .. Petitioner Vs Vimala .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.07.2011 made in I.A.No.69 of 2011 in O.S.No.178 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukottai. !For petitioner ... Mr.B.Jameel Arasu ^For respondent ... Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian :ORDER Heard both the sides. 2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defendant would echo the heart-burns of his client to the effect that his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 146 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to get set aside the ex-parte decree for recovery of money, was dismissed without any valid reason and the delay was small and that occurred due to the communication gap between himself and his Advocate. 3.Whereas...
P.Aswath Raja Vs. 1.N.A.Kannan Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.32 of 2013 P.Aswath Raja .. Petitioner Vs 1.N.A.Kannan Raja 2.N.A.K.Alagiri Raja 3.N.A.Pethuraja .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order in I.A.No.512 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni dated 30.11.2012. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Ramesh ^ :ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would echo the heart-burns of his client to the effect that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2012 before the Lower Court for permanent injunction as against the defendants; and that he also filed I.A.No.512 of 2012 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for interim injunction, but the said I.A. has not been considered by the Lower Court and the same is pending without any progress. Hence, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would pr...
V.Subburaj Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P(MD)No.33 of 2013 V.Subburaj .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Karivalamvandhanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.Suresh .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, namely, Thavasathiyabama, W/o.V.Subburaj, aged about 25 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.P.Arun Jayatram ^For respondents 1 and 2... Mr.R.Ramachandran, Additional Public Prosecutor For 3rd respondent ... Mr.Vaikundhu :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The petitioner claims to be the husband of the detenue, namely, Thavasathiyabama, (aged 25 years as mentioned in the affidavit). According to the peti...
G.Nagarajan Vs. 1.The Commissioner,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.5388 of 2007 G.Nagarajan ... Petitioner vs 1.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ... Respondent Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1688/2007C1, dated 19.04.2007 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and for consequential direction, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner to the promotion to the post of Pipeline Fitter in the respondent Municipality. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Kadarkarai :ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent, dated 19.04.2007, whereby his claim for promotion to the post of Pipeline Fitter was rejected on the ground that the same can be done onl...
The Branch Manager, Vs. 1.Vellammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A(MD) No.190 of 2009 The Branch Manager, New lndia Assurance Company Limited, 853/1, Nehruji Road, Theni. .. Appellant vs 1.Vellammal 2.Minor Ramar 3.Minor Mahendran (Minor 2nd and 3rd respondents are represented through their Mother and natural guardian the 1st respondent) 4.S.Ponnangan (Driver) 5.R.Kannamani .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.08.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam. !For Appellant ... Mr.J.S.Murali ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Appadurai for R1 to R3 :JUDGMENT The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.190 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accide...
Thirusuli Muthaiah Vs. Venkatapathi Nayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1651 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Thirusuli Muthaiah .. Petitioner Vs Venkatapathi Nayakar .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair order and ex-order dated 12.04.2011 made in I.A.No. 787 of 2010 in O.S.No.312 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur. !For petitioner ... Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu ^For respondent ... Mr.S.Kadarkarai :ORDER Heard both the sides. From the facts and figures as well as from the submissions made on both sides, what transpires is that the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.312 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs: ""1.ne;eph; gpujpthjpahdth; jgrpy; fz;l bjhHpw;rhiyapy; nUe;J btspBaWk; fy;J]rpiaj; jLf;Fk; bghUl;L, jgrpy; fz;l brhj;ijr; Rw;wpYk; @& bjhHpw;rhiyapd; fy; miuf;Fk; nae;jpuk; cauj;jpw;F Rw;Wr; Rth; mikj;Jk;, fy; miuf;Fk; BghJ J]...
R.Chitra Devi Vs. 1.P.Mayandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2758 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 R.Chitra Devi .. Petitioner Vs 1.P.Mayandi 2.Mahalingam 3.Velmurugan 4.Raja Kamatchi .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in O.S.No.138 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Andipatti and struck off the plaint. !For petitioner ... Mr.M.Pavel ^ :ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would echo the heart-burns of his client to the effect that the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2012 has been filed by the plaintiff as against four defendants, of whom the fourth defendant happened to be the revision petitioner, for a declaration that the sale deed in respect of the second item of the suit property executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the fourth defendant, is null and void; for permanent injunction to remove the present construct...
Divisional Manager, Vs. 1.P.irulayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS C.M.A.(MD) No.261 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 30, Samiyannan Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Virudhunagar. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2 Vs. 1.P.Irulayee 2.P.Rasu ... Respondents 1 & 2/ Petitioners 3.D.Raman ... 3rd Respondent/ Respondent No.1 Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 2007 dated 30.07.2008, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Virudhunagar. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan ^For Respondents 2 and 3... Mr.J.Suresh Kumar for Mr.N.V.Suresh Kumar For 3rd Respondent ... No Appearance ***** :JUDGMENT 1 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident disputes its liability to pay the compensation awarded.2. On 02.04.2007, one Pitchai travelled in the Tractor ...
Murugan Vs. 1.S.Mahendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2433 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 Murugan .. Petitioner Vs 1.S.Mahendran 2.S.Surendran 3.S.Ramanathan 4.S.Ravindran 5.K.Kulu @ Kamatchi 6.M.Moorthy 7.M.Ramesh 8.M.Anandan 9.M.Thiagarajan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 01.11.2012 made in I.A.No.176 of 2012 in O.S.not Unnumbered of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. !For petitioner ... Mr.P.Prakash ^For respondents... Mr.K.S.Sreenivasan :ORDER Heard both the sides. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: a)To declare that the suit properties are the Private Family Trust Shenbagamoorthy Ayyanar Kovil Dharmam of which the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant are the Hereditary Trustees; b)In...
T.Yasmeen Fathima Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P(MD)No.6 of 2013 T.Yasmeen Fathima .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Thoulath Ali, aged 40 years, before this Court and set him at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.P.Muthuvijyapandian ^For respondents ... Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that her husband, Thoufeeth Ali, (wrongly mentioned as Thoulath Ali) has been found missing from 02.12.2012 onwards and his whereabouts are not known.2. When this Habeas Corpus Petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »