Chennai Court October 2016 Judgments
S. Kandasamy Vs. The District Collector, Thuthukudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, in R.C.No.A4/2735/2016, dated 14.09.2016, passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to sanction an increment, taking into one year of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 and revise the pension to the petitioner.) 1. For the completed period of one year service, namely service from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008, whether it is necessary that the petitioner should be in service as on 01.07.2008, to claim increment for the services already completed / rendered, is the issue raised in this writ petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 14.09.2015, passed by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, declining increment in the pay. Brief facts:- 3.1. The petitioner joined as Village Adm...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager Vs. R. Nagendran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 04.04.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.67 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.) 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013, made in MCOP.No.67 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in awarding a sum of Rs.7,97,735/- as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground of liability and quantum. 2. Background of the facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 02.08.2012, at about 8.30 hrs., while the claimant was walking on the road near his house from south to north of VOC Nagar, 1st street, Triupur, a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-37-AP-0525 driven by the driver of the second respondent in a rash and negligen...
Tag this Judgment!A. Raisa Nasrin Vs. A.S. Bilal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the case in G.W.O.P.No.524 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for transfer of G.W.O.P.No.524 of 2016 from the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Family Court, Sivagangai. 2.The respective counsels both for the petitioner and the respondent are heard. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 27.12.2009 as per the Islamic rituals and customs. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 07.10.2010. 4.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent/ husband is a drunkard and was having a habit of torturing the petitioner and the child both physically and mentally. Further, he used to abuse the petitioner as well as her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Thulasidasan Nair and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramanian and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Common Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of C.P.C. r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgement and decree passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2491 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015 by allowing the review applications.) Common Order: 1. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 filed a memo before this Court stating that a final decree was passed on 19.10.2016. Hence he would submit that the Review Applications have become infructuous. 2. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners has submitted that the interim stay granted by this Court in the above Civil Revision Petition. Pursuant to the order, the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli has passed the final decree on 19.10.2016. Therefore the final decree passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli is in flagrant violation of the interim order granted by this Court. On a perusal of the records, originally interim order was granted by this Court on 8.8.2016 for...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajeswari and Others Vs. M. Ganesan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
A. Selvam, J. 1. These Original Side Appeals have been preferred against the common judgment passed in T.O.S. No. 13 of 1998 and Transfer C.S.No.159 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Pending appeal, a memo dated 30-09-2016, has been filed by the appellants stating that the first appellant in both the appeals, Smt. Rajeswari W/o. Murugesa Nadar died pending appeals on 14-02-2014 and her legal representatives, (who are none other than remaining appellants and respondents), are already on record. The said memo is taken on record. 3. The appellants in both the appeals have filed T.O.S. No. 13 of 1998 praying to grant letter of administration in respect of the Will dated 24-05-1994. The deceased second respondent in O.S.A. No. 188 of 2004 and first respondent in O.S.A. No. 189 of 2004, as plaintiff has instituted Transfer C.S.No.159 of 2000 for the relief of partition. 4. The material averments made in the plaint filed in T.O.S.No.13 of 1998 can be summarised as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!Hasinabi Vs. C. Kaliyamoorthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.197 of 2006 before the Principal District Munsif's Court, Villupuram.) 1. Impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.197 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration, possession and for mandatory injunction. 3. The avernments in brief contained in the plaint are as follows: The property described in the A schedule property originally belonged to Ramani and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The above said Ramani h...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramakrishnan, Area Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist), C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records relating to the order bearing G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 3.9.2015 (Ex-A) passed by the 1st respondent Department from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act more particularly Regulation No.28 of the Development Regulation which are framed in exercise of this Act and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential mandamus forbearing the respondents herein, their agents or servants from demolishing or altering the Selvapathy Chettiar Park situated on Strahans Road, Perambur, Chennai or for converting it for any other purpose and award costs.) R. mahadevan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.113, Housing and Urban Development (UD-I), dated 03.09.2015 as illegal, arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajamony Vs. V. Azhakappan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order and decretal order made in I.A.No.591 of 2015 in O.S.No.261 of 2013, dated 22.12.2015, on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order and decretal order made in I.A.No.591 of 2015 in O.S.No.261 of 2013, dated 22.12.2015, on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil. 2. As per the provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, any order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C is an appealable order. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file appeal before the appellate Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Anjila and Another Vs. Chellammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal. The suit filed for partition was allowed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment, this second appeal is filed primarily on the ground of res judicata and ouster. 2. The parties before this Court are legal heirs of late Mr. K. Veerasamy and Late Mr. K. Kuppusamy who are the blood brothers. The suit properties were jointly purchased by Mr. K. Veerasamy and Mr. K. Kuppusamy in the year 1955. During their life time, the suit properties were managed by Mr. K. Kuppusamy, the father of the defendants since, Mr. K. Veerasamy, the father of the plaintiffs settled in Ooty. In the year 1999, when Mr. K. Veerasamy came to know that his brother Mr. K. Kuppusamy has not deposited his share of rental income in his bank account as promised, he requested for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and also caused pre-suit notice on 03.11.1999. In response to the said notice,...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vennandur Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in C.A.No.76 of 2009 dated 7.1.2011 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the conviction under section 326 I.P.C. and sentence for a period of 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months R.I. in S.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram, dated 16.9.2009.) A-1 in the Sessions case in S.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram, Namakkal District is the revision petitioner. 2. Noticing the following factual matrix in brief is sufficient to dispose of this Criminal revision: A-1 and A-3 are spouses. A-1's mother is A-2. All belongs to Minnalkkal village in Namakkal District. Already there is property dispute between both sides. On 23.8.2006, at noon, when P.W.1, servant of P.W.2 was planting small plants on the small channel near the house of A-2, A-2 prevented it. Wordy altercation took ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »