Chennai Court October 2016 Judgments
P. Santhana Selvam Vs. T. Maria Amalitta Sindhuri
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order made in I.A.No.135 of 2016 in S.M.O.P.No.83 of 2015, dated 18.7.2016, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order made in I.A.No.135 of 2016 in S.M.O.P.No.83 of 2015, dated 18.07.2016, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent/husband has filed a petition for divorce in S.M.O.P.No.83 of 2015 against the revision petitioner/husband and the same is pending. In the meantime, the revision petitioner/husband has filed I.A.No.135 of 2016 for interim custody of the Petitioner's son and the same was dismissed on 18.07.2016. The relief sought for in the said application is for interim custody of the son for one day i.e., on every Sunday, is dismissed by the Court below without considering the grievance of the Petition...
Tag this Judgment!T. Swamydoss Vs. Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
R. Suresh Kumar, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 2.11.2008 in Ref.No. G.O. (2D) No. 687 served on the petitioner on 2.2.2009 through their covering letter dated 22.1.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all consequential service benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner which gave raise to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner joined police service as Police Constable in the year 1986 all along his service was blemishless. On 19.7.1988, he was ordered to escort a prisoner by name Chukka Paul, son of Somaiah from Madras to the Additional Munsif Court at Bapatla in Andhra Pradesh, under the supervision of Head Constable one Mr. Abdul Ghafer and another Constable A. Christopher. The petitioner was junior most in the team and he was bound by the direction given by the Head Constable, who was h...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Stressed Asset Management Branch, Rep. by Chief Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to take necessary action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within its specified period on the basis of the petition filed on 16.06.2016 and hand over possession of the properties.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch, represented by its Chief Manager, Coimbatore has sought for a direction to the respondent herein viz., the District Magistrate/District Collector, Coimbatore, to take necessary action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a specified period on the basis of the petition filed on 16.06.2016 and hand over possession of the properties. 2. On 17.10.2016, when the matter came up for hearing, we permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve the entire cause papers on the learned Government Pleader, returnable on 24.10.2016. Matter came up yesterday and learned Special Government Pleader, w...
Tag this Judgment!A. Uma Maheshwari Vs. R. Muthuraj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2016 pending on the file of Sub Court, Thoothukudi and to transfer the same to the file of Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil.) 1. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 06.04.2014 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Thoothukudi. Due to strained relationship between the parties, the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home and now she is living along with her parents at Nagercoil. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born to her on 06.02.2015 and now the child is aged 1 years. The contention of the petitioner is that she filed Crl.M.P.No.1459 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil under the Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending. The respondent has filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2016 before the Subordinate Court at Thoothukudi. Therefore, the petitioner is unable spent time...
Tag this Judgment!YouTube LLC 901, Cherry Avenue San Bruno California 94066 United State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The appellants, who are portal providers, are caught in the crossfire between the two respondents in a defamation suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. 2. The learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court found the allegations in the plaint and the interlocutory application sufficient to pass an interim order of restraint, with which the appellants have already complied. Next step is to serve the second respondent against whom the defamation proceedings have been take out and for that purposes the appellants were asked to disclose the address at which the second respondent could be served. 3. The appellants have moved an application seeking modification of that order dated 13.5.2016 to the extent it called for a disclosure from them. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.8.2016. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the dual submiss...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manage ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2009, dated 16.08.2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Court, Paramakudi.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Paramakudi, filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants, is the appellant and challenging their liability to pay compensation and also questioning the quantum, had filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The deceased is one Radhakrishnan, who was employed as a Senior Driver in the services of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (in short 'TNSTC'). On 11.03.2009, the deceased, in the course of his employment, was driving a bus belonging to the TNSTC bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-0907 from Kamuthi to Ramanathapuram and when the said bus was proceeding on Kamuthi Parthipanoor road at about 07.00 a.m. on 11.03...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ganesan Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, SME Branch, Peru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Ref.No.27469/2015/D2 dated 18.08.2016 passed by the second respondent, quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the second respondent herein, in Ref.No.27469/2015/D2, dated 18.08.2016 and to quash the same. 2. The first respondent Bank is a secured creditor. It initiated action against the fifth respondent / borrower under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act ) and approached the second respondent / District Collector, Erode, to take possession of the secured assets. The second respondent passed an order dated 18.08.2016 authorising the Tahsild...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Vs. Athithanagai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.88 of 2010, dated 11.11.2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.1350 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1350 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1350 of 2004 is that the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of her son by virtue of a settlement deed dated 07.05.2003. Similarly, the original owner namely D.Madasamy had executed a settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff's son and plaintiffs 2 and 3 by virtue of settlement deed dated 23.06.1975. It is not in dispute that the 1/3rd share of the first plaintiff is derived on the basis of the alleged sett...
Tag this Judgment!C. Soman Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order in D.Dis.No.C3.1472/16 dated 13.07.2016 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.) M.V. Muralidaran, J 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order in D.Dis.No.C3.1472/16 dated 13.07.2016 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent is putting up a new construction for church in R.S.No.774/8, 10-13 and 23 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The said area falls within the Costal Regulation Zone. There is a notification, namely, Coastal Regulation Zone notification. As per regulation, no construction shall be permitted within Coastal Regulation Zone. The subject con...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanasundaram Vs. M. Kumaravel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
G. Jayachandran, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this court. The suit filed by the appellant herein for recovery of money based on the pro-note executed by the respondent herein was allowed by the trial court, whereas reversed by the Appellate Court disbelieving the endorsement made on the said pro-note for partial payment and saving of limitation. Aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that when the signature found on the endorsement marked as Ex.A2 is admitted by the respondent-defendant, the first appellate Court ought not to have disbelieved the said endorsement to de-suit the plaintiff. Further, it is contended by the appellant that the first appellate Court has given a finding on the genuineness and validity of exhibit A2 endorsement without any pleadings and issue framed in this regard. 2. To understand the lis before this court, the facts of the case is extracted below: The case of the appellant is that, the respondent herein borrowed a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »