Chennai Court September 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.
Ceceli Vs. Arpudasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :05. 09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN S.A. No.1557 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Ceceli .. Appellant versus Arpudasamy ... Respondent Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2010 made in A.S.No.310 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2006 made in O.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry. For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr.T.P.Manoharan JUDGMENT The second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.310 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2006 made in O.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry.2. The appellant herein is the d...
A.R.Gokulakrishnan Vs. Union Public Service Commission
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :- 05.09.2013 Coram The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.34431 of 2012 M.P.Nos.2& 3 of 2013 A.R.Gokulakrishnan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi 110 069. 2.The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, No.9, Deen Dayan Upadhyay Marg New Delhi 110 124. 3.The Home Secretary, Home Department, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 4.The Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 5.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. 6.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 7.R.Ambalavanan I A & AS Officer, Executive Director, Tea Board, Shelwood, Club Board, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. 8.Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents R8 impleaded as per orde...
Bosotto Bros Vs. Aruna Constructions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :- 05.09.2013 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU C.R.P.(NPD) No.1743 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 M/s.Bosotto Bros Bakers and Confectioners Rep. By its Managing Partner New No.268, (695) Anna Salai Chennai 6. ... Petitioner Vs. M/s. Aruna Constructions Rep. By its Managing Partner Mrs.A.K.Aruna carrying on business at 346 A.Pantheon Road Egmore Chennai 8. ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2013 made in R.C.A No.630 of 2011 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai against the order dated 18.10.2011 made in R.C.O.P.No.2156 of 2007 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner :- Mr.S.Ganesh For Respondent :- Mrs.M.Sneha for for M/s. J.Ravindran ORDER The Revision petitioner is the tenant. They are aggrieved against the order of eviction concurrently passed by both the courts below under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building...
Dr.G.Sivaraman Vs. P.Muthukumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:05. 09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.R.C.No.694 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Dr.G.Sivaraman ... Petitioner/Respondent -vs- P.Muthukumari ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:- This Criminal Revision case is filed to call for the records and set aside the order in M.C.No.41 of 2005 dated 13.03.2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan For Mr.S.Sundar Raman For Respondent : Mr.E.Kannadasan ***** ORDER Here is the peculiar case wherein the question arises for consideration is whether the husband, who obtained decree for divorce on the ground of refusal on the part of the wife to live with her husband is liable to pay any maintenance and if so, the period from which his liability to pay maintenance commences.2. The facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife got married on 10.07.2003 and the wife left the husban...
P.S.Murugesan Vs. P.N.Nallasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2790 and 2791 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 P.S.Murugesan .Petitioner in CRP NPD No.2790/13 V.Muthukrishnan .Petitioner in CRP NPD No.2791/13 ..vs.P.N.Nallasamy ...Respondent in both C.R.Ps. Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge).Gobichettypalayam made in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 2/2011 dated 4.2.2013 reversing the order and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Controller District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, Erode made in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 27.01.2011. For Petitioners : Mr.R.N.Amarnath in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel in both C.R.Ps. ****** C O M M O N ORDER The petitioners are the tenants. C.R.P.(NPD) No.2790 of 2013 arises out of R.C.O....
R.Rangarajan Vs. K.Ramasamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :05. 09.2013 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.Ramanathan A.S.No.845 of 1993 1.R.Rangarajan 2.Minor R.Ramesh 3.Minor R.Padmanabhan 4.Minor R.Gopalakrishnan ( Appellants-2 to 4 are rep. by their mother & guardian/Saraswathy/Appellant No.5) 5. Saraswathi ...Appellants Vs. 1.K.Ramasamy Naidu 2.Muthammal 3.Ramakrishnan 4.Lakshmiammal 5.Saraswathiammal 6.Ammulu Ammal 7.Vijayammal (deceased) 8.G.Raju Naidu 9.G.R.Chinnadorai 10.R.Ravichandran 11.N.Saraswathi 12.L.Andal 13.R.Sulochana 14.R.Vishnu Vardhan 15.R.Vishnu Priya (R-8 to 15 are impleaded as lrs of the deceased R-7, as per order passed today in C.M.P.Nos.628 to 630/2013) 16. M.Arumugham (R-16 is impleaded as per order passed today in C.M.P.No.632 of 2013) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1989, passed in O.S.No.38 of 1985, on the file of the Sub Judge, Udumalpet. For Appellants : Mrs.P.Veena for MrT.R.Rajagopalan For Resp...
C.Shanmugam Vs. S.Senthilkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:05. 09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.1374 of 2005 C.Shanmugam .. Appellant vs 1) S.Senthilkumar 2) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Motor III Party Claims Office, No.8, Esplanade, Chennai 108. .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2004 and made in MCOP No.2193 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.J.Mahalingam For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Krishnan (R2) R1-exparte JUDGMENT The appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal in CMA No.1374 of 2005, against the award and decree passed in MCOP No.2193 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The short facts of the cases are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in MCOP No.2193 of 1999, claiming compensation of ...
S.Shanmuga Rajan Vs. Commandant Tn Special Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :05. 09.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition No.18616 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 S.Shanmuga Rajan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commandant T.N.Special Police (Special Force) Veerapuram, Chennai. 2.The Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Trichy 12. 3.N.Tamilselvan, IPS I/c. Inspector General of Police, Addl. Director General of Police, Armed Police, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents 1 and 3 in connection with the impugned order passed by them in C.No.A4/PR/39/SF/2004 B.O.No.399/2004 dated 01.12.2004 and RC No.C1/27017/2011 dated 08.05.2013 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior ...
Perumal Vs. Senkamalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:5. 9.2013. CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S. No.20 of 1997 and C.M.P.Nos.672 to 677 of 2013 Perumal Appellant vs.1. Senkamalam 2. Selvam 3. Chandra 4. Pandian 5. Vannakkili 6. Sekar 7. Muthulakshmi 8. Mathi Alagan 9. Parijatham 10. Lakshmi Ammal 11. Mariyayee 12. Saroja 13. Dhanalakshmi 14. Ittlikaramma alias Vishalatchi 15. Srinivasan 16. Balasubramaniam Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 made in O.S.No.105 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Judge, Dharmapuri. For appellant : Mr.D.Shivakumaran For RR1, 3 to 7, 9 : Mr.R.Selvakumar For RR2 and 8 : No appearance. JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri is the appellant.2. Respondents 1 to 9 filed the above suit for partition of their 7/18 share and also for injunction in respect of C schedule property and the Trial Court passed the preliminary decree holding that respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to...
Tmt.Kathija Beevi Vs. the Dean in Charge
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:4. 9-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.5810 of 2007 (O.A.No.3486 of 2002) Tmt.Kathija Beevi ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Dean in Charge Govt. Rajaji Hospital Madurai 625 020.2. The Director of Medical Education Chennai 10. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being transferred to this Court on the abolition of the The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned order in Pro.Na.Ka.34051/N1.4/1/99 dated 17.8.2001 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner :- Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents :- Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.Govt. Pleader ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the order of removal from service.2. The writ petitioner's husband w...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »