Chennai Court October 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.
A. Ramanathan Vs. M/s. Tamarai Mills Ltd., A Public Limited Company, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.958 of 2012 in O.S.No.529 of 2012 dated 21.03.2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.958 of 2012 in O.S.No.529 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.529 of 2012 for Specific Performance, declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the first defendant filed an application in I.A.No.58 of 2012 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking for rejection of the plaint. The application, filed by the first defendant, was contested by the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both the parties and also Ex.P.1 document, produced by the first defendant, allowed the application in I.A.No.958 of...
Er.Shunmugaraj Vs. S. Chandramohan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to dispose of the suit in I.S.No.100 of 2011 on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to direct Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil to dispose of the suit in I.S.No.100 of 2011 on his file, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein in respect of the suit schedule property. The above said suit was filed on 1.6.2011.The Petitioner also filed a detailed written statement on 21.11.2011.Thereafter, issues were framed on 11.1.2013 and posted for appearance of the par...
Jothi Vs. Palani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Puducherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1969 against order passed in RCA No.14 of 2005 (on the file of Principal District Court, Puducherry), setting aside the order dated 29.04.2004 passed in HRCOP No.53 of 2003 on the file of Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A No.14 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Court, Puducherry, reversing the order passed in H.R.C.O.P No.53 of 2003 on the file of Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Puduchery, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/landlord filed H.R.C.O.P No.53 of 2003 for eviction, on the ground of wilful default and own use and occupation. 3. The brief case of the respondent/landlord is as follows: According to the landlord, he is the absolute owner of the property. He let out the demised premises in favour of the petitioner/tenant under the rent...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.S.Sounthar, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mrs.Jayasri Baskar, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent. 2. It comes to be known that the Petitioner/Appellant/ Complainant has preferred the Crl.M.P.No.9375 of 2016 in Crl.A. Sr.No.37877 of 2016 to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the Special Leave Petition for preferring Criminal Appeal against the Order/ Judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.6 of 2007 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. 3. According to the Petitioner, the order of acquittal was passed by the trial Court in S.T.C.No.6 of 2007 on 04.04.2016 in as much as the Petitioner had developed severe form of jaundice during 2nd week of April, 2016, he took native treatment and recovered only during the 1st week of June 2016. Thereafter, he met his counsel and instructed him to obtain the certified copy of the Judgment in question. Indeed, a copy application was filed on 04.06.2016 which ...
A. Easuraj Vs. The Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuance of the charge memo No.1/2008 dated 9.4.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential rejection order dated 26.11.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorari to call for the records in pursuance of the charge memo No.1/2008 dated 9.4.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential rejection order dated 26.11.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Fire-Man in Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service Department on 09.09.1996 and finally, he was posted on 14.8.2006 to work at Avadi Fire and Rescue Service Station. During his service in the year 2008, the first respondent has issued a charge memo No.1/2008 dated 09.4.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and A...
Jayaraman Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Takkolam Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement, dated 18.03.2016, passed in S.C.No.219 of 2013, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore and to acquit the appellant.) 1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment, dated 18.03.2016, made in S.C.No.219 of 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore/Trial Court. 2.The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment on 18.03.2016, in S.C.No.219 of 2013, at Para Nos.33 to 35, had observed as follows:- " 33. Accordingly, in the case on hand too, no such extraordinary circumstance is seems to be visible for either disbelieve or disprove the evidence of P.W.1. Mere defence of non-corroboration of evidence of P.W.1 by the evidence of Dr., who medically examined the virginity of P.W.1 is no way support the case of the Defence, bec...
Meenakumari Vs. Vikram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai.) 1. The present petition has been filed stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 10.03.2003 at Nayudu Mahal, Dindigul, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 04.12.2003. There was a frequent quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent, more specifically on the ground that the respondent has involved in some religious practices and running an Ashramam in Sukampatti Village, Karumalai, Vedachandur, and the respondent is intentionally avoiding the petitioner and the child. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No.66 of 2016 before the Family Court, Dindigul. So also, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.508 of 201...
The Branch Manager, M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: C.M.A. And Cross Objection filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Hosur.) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. The Insurance Company has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Subordinate Court, Hosur. Aggrieved over the very same award, the 1st respondent/Claimant has filed the Cross Objection for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the original petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that had occurred on 19.10.2008. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, 3 witnesses were examined and 18 documents, Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked and on the side of the respondents neither any witness was examin...
Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Oyvupetra Thozhilalar Vs. The General Manager, Ti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle and disbursement of commutation of pension and leave salaries together with interest at current market rate of 12% for the entire money to the 42 retired persons listed in para 8 of the affidavit and also specified in letter dated 15.03.2009.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Association would submit that the members of the petitioner Association have already received the benefits from the respondent Corporation. The dispute regarding the interest alone is pending before the respondent Corporation. 2. In view of the above settlement made by the respondent Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition may be closed giving liberty to agitate the claim of interest before the respondent Corporation. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed giving libert...
D. Rosatty Vs. V. Victor Rajendran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer:Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P. No. 11 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the District Court, Tuticorin.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P. No. 11 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the District Court, Tuticorin. 2. The respective counsel both for the petitioner and the respondent are heard. 3. The facts narrated in short by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19.09.2013 as per the Christian Rites and customs and due to the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent/husband filed I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2016 before the Family Court, Dindigul, which is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is living with her parents at Tuticorin and she...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »