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.
N. Padma Vs. Muthuraja
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.534 of 2016 pending on the file of Family Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Sivagangai.) 1. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 29.05.2015 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Alavakottai, Sivagangai. Due to strained relationship between the parties, they are living separately. The contention of the petitioner is that she filed H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2016 before the Family Court, Sivagangai. Subsequently, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.534 of 2016 before the Family Court, Madurai for divorce. Now, the transfer petition is filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.534 of 2016 from the file of Family Court, Madurai to Family Court, Sivagangai. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now employed and residing at Mumbai and respondent is residing at Che...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. Considering the common issues have arisen in these Applications, they have taken up together. 2. This is a third round of litigation inter-se parties. It is not in dispute that the applicants are the owners of floors 2 to 4 and common owners of first floor with a specific demarcation as ordered in the earlier round of litigation in C.S.No.270 of 2013, by way of compromise entered in the inter-se parties, this decree was passed on 28.04.2016. 3. Now, there are allegations and counter allegations. It is the case of the applicants that the pipelines with respect to drainage and water supply running through the portion owned by the respondents has been cut followed by an encroachment in the common area. Thus, the applicants are unable to use their exclusive property with respect to floors 2 to 4. It is further case of the applicants that in the first floor, there is no toilet, but only the current meter is in existence. Therefore, there is an attempt to use the said po...
Kanagam and Another Vs. Gowdhaman
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.236 of 2016 in O.S.No.92 of 2014, dated 2.7.2014, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.236 of 2016 in O.S.No.92 of 2014, dated 2.7.2014, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. 2. According to the Petitioners, the suit 'A' schedule property was allotted to Govinda Panicker. The above suit 'A' schedule property form part of the property acquired for channel. Hence the Petitioners disputed the identity of the suit property. Therefore an application has been filed by the revision petitioners seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence the revision Petitioners have come forward with the prese...
M. Akilandeswari Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to sanction two increments for further qualification of M.A. degree and B.Ed. degree of the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to sanction two increments for further qualification of M.A. degree and B.Ed. degree of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who took notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Elementary School Teacher in Panchayat Union Primary School at Thirumanickampatti, Thogamali Panchayat Union on 20.07.1999 and thereafter she was transferred to Kidaram Village. After obtaining permission, she obtained B.A. Degree in Tamil Literature a...
Rajan Athmaram (deceased) Proprietor of M/s. Rajan and Co. rep. By Yog ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.2014 made in C.C.No.738 of 2006 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (FTC-II), Egmore, Chennai.) 1. Publication in Tamil Daily viz., 'Makkal Kural' was effected as early as on 12.04.2016. However, the publication in English Daily was effected on 04.10.2016 in News Today paper. The Respondents 1 and 2 were called absent and on their behalf, no one has entered appearance nor filed vakalat. Resultantly, the service by 'Substituted Service' is held sufficient. 2. Heard Mr.V.Paul Panneerselvam, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/ Complainant, the trial Court had committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had not established his case against the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused and ultimately, acquitted them as per Section 255(1...
Sabapathi Vs. The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, Koodalpudur P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 02.07.2015 made in S.C.No.327 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai [FAC], Madurai District.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.327 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court], Madurai. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 02.07.2015, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Saravanakumar. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. Th...
C. Rajendran Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2016 to revoke the order of suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in proceedings in R.C.No.5484/2016(A1) dated 31.08.2016 and permit the petitioner to retire from the service with all monetary benefits.) 1. Hang him, not release him; Hang him not, release him . The punctuation of comma made viz., the place at which comma was used, was positive for the prisoner. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, the initial C and G attributable to name Rajendran, has created havoc in the retired life of the petitioner, though he received three awards for the meritorious service. 1.1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2016, praying to revoke the order of suspension ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondnets
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
1. K.V.Moovendhan represented by his Power of Attorney Mr.R.Richard Jamespeter has filed the civil miscellaneous appeal aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2016 passed by the Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.9228/ N-5/2015, confirming the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Special Deputy Collector of Stamps, Tirunelveli in her proceedings in Mu.Sa.X1/1937/13 and Mu.Sa.X1/1938/13, fixing the value of the property in Survey No.46/1, Uthamapandiankulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District at Rs.900/- per square metre. He has also filed C.M.P.No.11687 of 2016 to grant an order of stay of all further proceedings and C.M.P.No.11688 of 2016 to pass an order of interim direction directing the respondents to release the sale deeds dated 16.9.2013 and 17.9.2013 registered as Document Nos.853 and 854 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Burkit Mahanagaram, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli...
Ponmuthu and Another Vs. Naganothi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records from the lower Court, hear the counsel for the revision petitioner and set aside the decree and judgement of the lower Court in I.A.No.1161 of 2013 in M.C.O.P.No.545 of 2011, dated 30.3.2016 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai and to allow and implead the proposed parties as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main claim petition.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking to call for the records from the lower Court, hear the counsel for the revision petitioners and set aside the decree and judgement of the lower Court in I.A.No.1161 of 2013 in M.C.O.P.No.545 of 2011, dated 30.03.2016 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai and to allow and implead the proposed parties as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main claim petition. 2. According to the revision Petitioners, the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.1161 of 2013 under Order...
Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs. Regen Infrastructure and Services (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5137 of 2015 on 14.03.2016. 2. The Respondent company is the Assessee on the rolls of the Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-V(4), Nungambakkam, Chennai. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the Respondent/Assessee has uploaded its Return sometime immediately past midnight of 15.10.2010, that was treated as belated filing beyond the permissible time. It is only appropriate to notice that by a Notification dated 28.9.2010, the Ministry of Finance has extended the due date for filing of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2010-11, from 30.09.2010 up to 15.10.2010, as general life has been disturbed due to the floods. The Assessee moved an application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the Return of income. That application has been rejected by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »