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.
M .Mathivanan Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to settle the petitioner's earned leave salary of Rs.1,18,278/- for 92 days from 2011-2016 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's earned leave salary of Rs.1,18,278/- for 92 days from 2011-2016 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the 1st respondent Corporation as Junior Tradesman with effect from 01.05.1988 and after periodical promotion, he was promoted as Technical Level -5 and retired from service on 31.03.2016; that his earned leave salary of approximately Rs.1,18,278/- (for 92 days) has not been disbursed to...
Kirubanandan and Others Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence, dated 13.12.2013, made in S.C.No. 101 of 2013, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The trial Court has framed as many as four charges against them as detailed below: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 to A5U/s.147 IPC2A4 and A5U/s.341 IPC3A1 to A3U/s.302 r/w 149 IPC4A4 and A5U/s.302 r/w 149 IPC 2. By judgment dated 13.12.2013, the trial Court convicted all the five accused under the respective charges and sentenced them as detailed below; AccusedConvictionSentenceA1 to A5U/s.147 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 2 yearsA4 and A5U/s.341 IPCSimple Imprisonment for 1 monthA1 to A3U/s.302 r/w 149 IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a furth...
George Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. R. Radha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.2010 made in A.S.No.439 of 2009 on the file of Fast Track Court - V, Chennai confirming the decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.3440 of 2002 dated 07.07.2006 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.) 1. Impugningthe Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.2010 made in A.S.No.439 of 2009 on the file of Fast Track Court - V, Chennai confirming the decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.3440 of 2002 dated 07.07.2006 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendant Bank for declaration that the impugned mortgage deed dated 29.04.1999 is null and void and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to return the original title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiffs. 3. The parties are referred to in this second appeal, as per th...
Shaik @ Shaik Maracaiyar Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 23.04.2015, made in S.C.No.24 of 2012, by the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 23.04.2015, the trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused from the charge under Section 364 IPC, however, convicted him under the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Devika, aged about 27 years. PW4...
Beevi Fathima Rajabunisha Vs. Habeeb Rahman
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw and transfer O.S.No.159 of 2016 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judge / Family Court, Chennai to the Hon'ble Principal Sub Court, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.05.2014 at Kulasekarapattinam, according to Islamic rituals and customs. Due to the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent filed O.S.No.159 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Chennai. The contention of the petitioner is that now she is living with the support of her mother at Tuticorin and working as a Primary School Teacher. Therefore, she will not be in a position to travel from Tuticorin to Chennai to defend the case effectively. Further, the petitioner is living along with her aged mother and she cannot leave her mother alone and travel to Chennai. 2. Despite s...
M/s. Sri Kandhan Rugs Exports Private Ltd. Vs. The Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent bank with respect to the sale notice dated 08.09.2016 and quash the sale as being illegal, unjustifiable and is in excessive execution and consequently direct the Bank to receive the offer of the third party for a price of Rs.3.00 Crores for item No.1 of the properties and further restructure the balance amount repayable as a Term Loan in consonance with the circulars of the Reserve Bank of India.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Auction Sale Notice dated 08.09.2016, fixing sale of the scheduled properties on 20.10.2016, is sought to be challenged in the instant writ petition on the grounds inter alia that though, the petitioner has arranged for a purchaser to buy Item No.1 of the scheduled properties at the rate of Rs.3.1 Crores, Bank has refused to accept the same and made an attempt to sell the properties on a very low reserved...
S. Sithivinayagam Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu rep.by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 4th and 5th respondents, dated 05.03.2007, bearing Letter No.14164/Na.Pa.1/06-1 and 22.03.2007, bearing Na.Ka.No. 69764/2005/K2 respectively and quash the same and direct the respondents to calculate the petitioner's period of service as 29 years for calculation the petition and all other retirement benefits and consequently to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/-, which was recovered from the petitioner's salary towards the closure compensation paid by the 2nd respondent.) 1. The writ petitioner was originally employed in Arakonam Steel Industry, which is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and an unit of T.I.D.C.O. He was working from the year 1974 till the closure of the company i.e. 31.08.1998. It is stated by the petitioner that by way of G.O.No. 222, dated 16.06.1998, G.O.No.524, date...
Mariappan and Another Vs. Gomathi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2073 of 2016 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.3.2016 and 16.3.2016 passed in I.A.No.162 of 2016 in I.A.No.74 of 2016 in O.S.No.302 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram. Prayer in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2074 of 2016 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.3.2016 and 16.3.2016 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2016 in I.A.No.75 of 2016 in O.S.No.302 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram. Prayer in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2075 of 2016 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.3.2016 and 16.3.2016 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2016 in I.A.No.76 of 2016 in O.S.No.302 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these C...
Karthika Devi Vs. Selvakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw H.M.OP.No.57 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.03.2011 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Subsequent to the marriage, the respondent was not maintaining the petitioner and not leading a happy life with the petitioner. Due to the frequent quarrel between the parties and the non maintenance of the petitioner by the respondent, the petitioner was forced to file M.C.No.7 of 2014 seeking maintenance and the same was allowed on 27.02.2015. In spite of the order, the respondent is not paying the maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, proceedings for recovery of maintenance are also initiated by the petitioner at Sankarankovil. In order to avoid payment of maintenance, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.57 of 20...
K. Puthisigamani Vs. The Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Med ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.1560/G/2009-5 dt.16.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the leave salary for the period of 1.11.2002 to 1.12.2002 amounting to Rs.14 027/- and the duty salary for the period from 2.12.2002 to 31.3.2003 amounting to Rs.56 108/- (Totally Rs.70 135/-) along with interest at the rate of 12% from 1.4.2003 till the date of payment and the cost of this writ petition.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.1560/G/2009-5 dt.16.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the leave salary for the period of 1.11.2002 to 1.12.2002 amounting to Rs.14 027/- and the duty salary f...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »