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.
S. Loganathan Vs. C. Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.1064 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai and to allow the civil revision petition.) 1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.1064 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai. 2. The revision petitioner/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2011 seeking divorce and to declare the marriage solemnised between the revision petitioner and the respondent on 13.09.2007 as null and void. The said H.M.O.P. was filed after four years from the date of marriage. Pending H.M.O.P., the respondent filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1064 of 2011 for interim maintenance claiming Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the revision petitioner. The trial Court, considering the facts of the case and after perusing the ...
M/s. Srishti Communications, represented by its Proprietor S. Kumar, B ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent dated 27.10.2015 vide proceedings No.G.16/DGM/ARB/CCM, nominating the third respondent as sole arbitrator and to quash the same, and consequently, set aside the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 26.09.2016 and to appoint an independent arbitrator to decide the disputes arisen between the petitioner and the respondent on the execution of contract dated 11.06.2011.) Challenging the appointment of Arbitrator and also the consequential order passed by the third respondent Arbitrator, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered into an agreement with Southern Railway for displaying commercial advertisement at the fa ade, Madurai Railway Station on 11.6.2011 for a period of five years commencing from 29.4.2011 to 28.4.2016. During the course of its business, c...
R. Muthuselvi Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: W.P.(MD)No.21468 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to select and appoint the petitioner (Register Number 100412146) to the post of Typist based on the marks and on merits as per overall Rank 697 and Communal Rank 145 for the post of Typist in MBC Category based on the selection conducted as per Notification No.401 of 2014 dated 14.10.2014 issued by the respondent.) 1. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued Notification No.18/2014 with Advertisement No.401/2014 dated 14.10.2014 inviting applications only through on-line mode upto 12.11.2014 for appointment to the written examination for direct recruitment against the vacancies for several posts, namely, Junior Assistant, Bill Collector Grade-I, Typist, Steno-Typist Grade-III etc., making it clear that the last date for submission of applications was on 12.11.2014, the last date for payment of fee through bank or post of...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and Mr.B.Ramesh Babu, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioners/Appellants/A1 and A2 have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 29.08.2016 in S.C.No.114 of 2015 passed by the Mahila Court, Salem. 3. It transpires that the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced them to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment in respect of an offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. Further, the Petitioners were directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of said fine amount, they were further directed to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. However, in respect of the offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C., both of them were convicted and sentenced them to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and each of them were also imposed with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment o...
The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), DPI Campus, Colleg ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 29.09.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.17787 of 2016.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would aver among other things that pursuant to the selection conducted by the Teacher Recruitment Board, by proceedings, dated 15.07.2006, the petitioner was appointed as Block Resource Teacher Educator (hereinafter referred to 'BRTE') and joined in the services of the respondents therein. Since the date of her appointment, she claims that she is discharging her duties diligently and sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors and considering her unblemished records of service, she was posted as Supervisor (incharge) and presently, she is serving as Supervisor at Kadayanallur. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2016 and in order to have employment till the ...
M/s. Thai Media Entertainment Rep by its Proprietor Abuthahir Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and to quash the impugned order Na.Ka.No.5083/2016/A7(Ma) issued by the 4th respondent dated 26.08.2016, as being arbitrary and to direct the respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016. The petitioner has come before this court, challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 26.08.2016, by which the V.O.C.Park Maidan, VOC Ground located at Avinashi, Coimbatore, was allotted to the 5th respondent, for conducting exhibition, contending that the petitioner alone has applied for the allotment of the said ground for conducting exhibition. 2. Though many contentions were raised, Mr.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioner would be allotted the said V.O.C.Ground, for conducting business from 03.11.2016 to 04.12.2016. The said statement is recorded. 3. Accordingly, the 3rd re...
K. Kuberanathan and Another Vs. State, rep. by Deputy Superintendent o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case No.709 of 2013 has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated 07.02.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.2055 of 2008 in C.C.No.64 of 2001 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. Criminal Revision Case No.840 of 2016 has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated 29.04.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2298 of 2014 in C.C.No.64 of 2001 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.) Common Order 1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders of dismissal dated 07.02.2013 and 29.04.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2055 of 2008 and Crl.M.P.No.2298 of 2014, respectively, in C.C.No.64 of 2001, passed by the learned Principal Special for CBI Cases, Chennai, in and by which, the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., were dismissed. 2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.709 of...
E. Rajendran Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 02.07.2014, made in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2014, by the learned Ist -Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy.) Judgment: S.Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By judgment dated 02.07.2014, the trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, convicted the appellant/accused 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 a further period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and se...
P. Milany Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016. 2. The appellant/petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016 seeking to quash the order of the second respondent, dated 19.02.2016 and also a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission and provide necessary protection to the appellant/petitioner and their community members to worship and celebrate their annual festival at Arulmighu Sikkumallammal Temple, Kattunayaganpatti, Theni District. 3. The facts of the case: (i) In a Temple, by name Arulmighu Sikkumallammal, in Kattunayaganpatti at Theni District belonging to Okkalikar Community, there is a dispute between two groups with regard to conduct of festival of the Temple. The said Temple is not under the control of H....
R.S. Gomathi Vs. Rukumaniammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the suit in O.S.No.766 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.) 1. This civil revision petition is filed to strike off the suit in O.S.No.766 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has fairly submitted that the suit is already posted for trial. Hence, at this stage, he has not insisted this Court for main relief sought for in the civil revision petition and requested to give direction for speedy disposal of the suit, which is pending before the trial Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the fair submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the learned tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »