Chennai Court October 2015 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.
L. Manoharan Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the records of the letter No.7090/BN2(2)/2011 dated 15.9.2011 of the Secretary to Government, The Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minority Welfare Department, the Third respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings in so far the petitioner land bearing survey No.497/2 extent 0.12.0 hectare or 0.30 cents at Vadamambakkam Village Arakonam Taluk Vellore Distrct.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter issued by the third respondent, dated 15.9.2011, and for a direction to direct the respondents to quash the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the land bearing survey No.497/2, in Vadamambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore Distrct. 3. It has been stated that the...
C. Ravi Subramanyam and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents related to the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land situated in Survey Nos.156/1B and 156/2B admeasuring 0.72.0 Hectares in Block No.6 in Minjur Village, Ponneri Taluk culminating in letter No.168/2010/A1/Unit-4 dated 06.01.2014 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as being contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to proceed further in respect of acquisition of land and payment of compensation in respect of the outer ring road project strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, including payment of compensation as a pre-condition t...
C. Chinnadurai and Another Vs. State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 15.12.2011 made in S.C.No.92 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.92 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. Altogether, there were four accused in the case. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11 to 4120(B) IPC21302 IPC32 to 4302 r/w 109 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 15.12.2011, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4, but convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2, as detailed below:- Accused No.Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount1302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years2302 r/w 109 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for lifeRs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. As against the said con...
Chitra Goyal and Others Vs. S. Premkumar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.5146 of 2011, on the file of the III Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai and praying to set aside the same.) 1. On 01.06.2010, at about 01.00 p.m., when the (deceased) Ashok Kumar Goyal was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-AT-0275, on the Muthusamy Salai, the Van bearing Registration No.TN-22-AJ-1638, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him. As a result, the (deceased) had succumbed to his injuries, in spite of medical treatment. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased had filed the claim against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. In the said case, the respondents have not filed counter statement, even after receiving notice from the Court. The claimants had filed proof affidavit and two witnesses were examined and 29 documents w...
I. Md. Fazallurehman and Others Vs. The Periyar Maniammai Institute of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2015, passed by the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A.No.14956 of 2014 in O.S.No.4406 of 2011, I.A.No.14957 of 2014 in O.S.No.4407 of 2011, I.A.No.14958 of 2014 in O.S.No.4408 of 2011, I.A.No.17058 of 2014 in O.S.No.4409 of 2011 and I.A.No.14955 of 2014 in O.S.No.4403 of 2011 and allow the applications.) Common Order: 1. These Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2015, passed by the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A.No.14956 of 2014 in O.S.No.4406 of 2011, I.A.No.14957 of 2014 in O.S.No.4407 of 2011, I.A.No.14958 of 2014 in O.S.No.4408 of 2011, I.A.No.17058 of 2014 in O.S.No.4409 of 2011 and I.A.No.14955 of 2014 in O.S.No.4403 of 2011. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in each p...
K. Jeyalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to give appropriate direction to the respondents thereby not to harass the petitioner and her children without following the due process of law.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction to the respondents thereby not to harass the petitioner and her children without following the due process of law. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on instruction submitted that there is no case and no F.I.R pending against the petitioner and hence, there is no harassment by the respondent police. 3. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the third respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but let the police investigate into the matter in accordance with law and the mandates as found set out in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. If really, the police want to interrogate, ...
N. Chelladurai Vs. A. Grazia
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.10 of 2007 dated 09.11.2009 and set aside the same.) 1. This petition has been filed by the husband, challenging the quantum of maintenance, that was awarded at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife in M.C.No.10 of 2007 on 09.11.2009 by the Family Court, Madurai. Brief Facts: 2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.12.1982 and that they were blessed with two children, who were born on 19.06.1983 and 13.06.1985 respectively; 2.1. The employment of the revision petitioner at the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation was arranged by his father-in-law. Thereafter, the revision petitioner / husband has driven both the wife and the children from the house. After prolonged negotiation by the elders, they were able to live together only for few years. ...
G. Usha Vs. State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 17.03.2014.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement, made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
K. Soundaravalli and Another Vs. R. Dhandapani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.1346 of 2015 in O.S.No.392 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.) 1. The Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.1346 of 2015 in O.S.No.392 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruppur. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners. 3. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 and 5 in O.S.No.392 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur. It is a partition suit filed by the first respondent. All the parties are siblings to each other. 4. While so, the first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1346 of 2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and the same was allowed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, on 12.09.2015. Hence, this revision petition. 5....
Kothainayakiammal and Others Vs. D. Murali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings in E.P.R.No.14 of 2015 in E.P.No.1 of 2015 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore.) 1. The revision petitioners are the tenants. They suffered a decree dated 03.12.2014 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. The revision petitioners, thereafter, filed appeal before the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, they filed interim application in I.A.No.260 of 2015 to condone the delay. 3. In these circumstances, the respondent/landlord filed execution petition. Hence, the revision petitioners are before this Court to set aside the execution proceedings. 4. Heard both sides. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the execution petition is allowed before the disposal of the appeal, then nothing survives for adjud...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »