Chennai Court November 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.
Seenuvasan Vs. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Devanatha Swamy Tirukov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.67 of 2010 and 68 of 2010 respectively dated 17.09.2010 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgement and decree in O.S.Nos.214 of 2008 and 479 of 2008 respectively dated 24.02.2010 on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram.) S.A.No.47 of 2011 1. The second defendant Seenuvasan has impugned the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2010 made in A.S.No.67 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupurm, confirming the Judgement and decree in O.S.No.214 of 2008 dated 24.02.2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, in this second appeal. S.A.No.48 of 2011 The plaintiff Seenuvasan has impugned the Judgment and decree dated 17.09.2010 in A.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Judge, confirming the judgement and decree dated 24.02.2010 in O.S.No.479 of 2...
S. Vivekanandan (deceased) and Others Vs. M.J. Umapathy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to receive three documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, as additional documents.) 1. This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 2 and 3 seeking to receive the three documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, as additional documents. 2. The suit is one for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 14.06.1995 and that the trial is in progress. 3. It is stated by the applicants/defendants 2 and 3, that the respondents/plaintiffs had not produced the original title deed relating to the property mentioned in the Will and that there is a valid dispute with respect to the lay out and the extent of the suit property. The certified copies of the documents, now sought to be produced, are said to be connected with the Will, which would enable the Court t...
M. Sathya Vs. R. Magudesh
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.434 of 2015 pending on the file of Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and to transfer the same to the file of Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.) 1. The contention of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 27.05.2001 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Thiruchengode. Out of the wedlock a female child was born. Due to strained relationship between the parties, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and now she is living along with her parents at Nagercoil. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.434 of 2015 from the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli to the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2016. 2. In view of the dismissal of the transfer filed by the husband in Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.440 of 2016, the present...
R. Magudesh Vs. M. Sathya
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2016 pending on the file of Sub Court, Thiruchengode and to transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Trichy to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.434 of 2015.) 1. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 27.05.2001 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Thiruchengode. Due to strained relationship between the parties, the respondent left the matrimonial home and now she is living along with her parents at Nagercoil. The petitioner/husband seeks transfer of H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2016 pending before the Sub Court, Thiruchengode to Family Court, Trichy to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.434 of 2015, which was filed by the petitioner seeking divorce. 2. The contention of the respondent is that out of the wedlock, a female child was born to her on 09.12.2003 and due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent, the petition...
Gurunathan Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Mallangina ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, in S.C.No.203 of 2013 dated 09.07.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.203 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar. He stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 09.07.2014, the trial Court convicted him both under sections 498(A) and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in b...
P. Sivasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to revise the petitioner's last drawn pay by taking dearness allowance at the rate of 119% of the basic pay and grade pay as per Tamil Nadu Government G.O.No.264 Finance (Allowances) Department dated 16.10.2015 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently direct the respondent to compute and pay him, the difference amount in gratuity, leave salary by taking into account revised rate of dearness allowance, i.e. at the rate of 119% of basic pay + Grade Pay as fixed in G.O.No.264 Finance (Allowances) Department dated 16.10.2015 within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent corporation as Conductor with effect from 02.08.1989; that he was subsequently promoted as Special Grade Conductor and he retired from service on 31.08.2015 in the said post and the petitioner se...
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: W.A.No.797 of 2006 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court dated 29.03.2006 in W.P.No.22196 of 2004. W.A.No.460 of 2007 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2007 in W.P.No.1447 of 2007.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. W.A. No. 797 of 2006 is filed against the order dated 29.03.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22196 of 2004. W.A. No. 460 of 2007 is filed against the order dated 27.02.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1447 of 2007. 2. The facts leading to the filing of W.A. No. 797 of 2006 are as under: (i) The petitioner in W.P. No. 22196 of 2004 is the respondent in this appeal. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein to shift/remove the electrical 11 kVA power overhead line, erected by the appellants-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the land belonging to him, causing prejudice to his interest in the property. The respondent has also paid the registration charg...
D. Rajasampath Kumar Vs. P. Vellairaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., as against the order of acquittal of the Respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, by the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode in S.T.C.No.89 of 2011 dated 02.04.2016.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 02.04.2016 in S.T.C.No.89 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode. 2. At the outset, this Court points out that today, the Crl.O.P.No.15468 of 2016 [seeking grant of Special Leave to prefer an Appeal] was allowed by this Court for the reasons assigned therein. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant, the trial Court on 02.04.2016 had dismissed the case for non-appearance of the Appellant/Complainant and consequently, acquitted the Respondent in terms of Section 256 Cr.P.C. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the Appellant/Complai...
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Governm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Today, W.A.(MD) No.480 of 2012 alone is listed along with vacate stay petition and it is represented by the respective learned counsel for the parties that similar issue is also involved in W.A(MD) Nos.481 and 482 of 2012. Therefore, by consent, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are narrated in the common order dated 05.11.2009 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4461, 4297, 4715, 4440, 5010, 5485 and 6021 of 2009 and therefore, it is unnecessary to state all the facts except to state the relevant facts for the disposal of the Writ Appeals. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Tamilnadu Public Service Commission would submit that private respondents were given temporary employment on contractual basis by the Government Departments. Thereafter, the Government of Tamilnadu took a policy decision to accommodate them in the respec...
S. Prabhu Vs. T. Yuvarani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.20 of 2015 filed by the respondent herein pending on the file of Family Court at Vellore and transfer the same to the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with F.C.O.P.No.4694 of 2014 pending before the Principal Judge Family Court, Chennai.) The petitioner filed a matrimonial proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.4694 of 2014 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, praying for a decree of divorce. 2. The respondent, on receipt of notice from the Trial Court, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Court at Vellore, in F.C.O.P.No.20 of 2015. 3. The petitioner entered appearance before the Trial Court and thereafter, having found that the atmosphere in the Court at Vellore was not conducive for trial or for settlement, on account of the stand taken by a particular lawyer, who is on record for the respondent, filed th...