Chennai Court December 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.
T. Devi Malar Vs. S. Meenesh Ganapathy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to withdraw the pending HMOP.No.24 of 2016 from the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2016 from the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 15.05.2011, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to the strained relationship between the parties, they are living separately. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 05.03.2012 and the child is now in the custody of the petitioner. Such being the case, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.24 of 2016 for divorce before the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that after leaving the matrimonial home, now she...
Kaliyappan Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, East Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.97 of 2015 dated 14.06.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellants in Crl.A.No.254 of 2016 are Accused Nos.1 and 3; the Appellants in Crl.A.No.234 of 2016 are Accused Nos.4 and 6; and the Appellants in Crl.A.No.345 of 2016 is Accused No.5 in S.C.No.97 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. Accused No.2 was one Komathikannan @ Kannan. During pendency of trial, A2-Komathikannan @ Kannan died and hence, charges against him stood abated. The trial court framed as many as four charges as against A1 and A3 to A6 as detailed below:- ad>Charge NumberCharges framed againstPenal provision under which charges framed1A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6Section 120(B) of IPC2A1 and A3Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC3A4, A5 and A6Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC4A4, A5 and A6Section 341 of IPC The...
M. Mallika Dindigul District Vs. Presiding Officer, Tiruchirappalli an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the Award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.140 of 2003 dated 31.08.2009 confirming the dismissal order passed by the 2nd respondent in order dated 15.12.2001 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and backwages and all other attendant and monetary benefits.) 1. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Trichy dated 31.08.2009, in I.D.No.140 of 2003, in and by which, confirming the dismissal order passed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Madurai, the second respondent herein, dated 15.12.2001, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Though initially, the writ petition was filed by N.Muruganandam-workman challenging the award of the first respondent, du...
Poomani Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating tot he impugned order of the first respondent in ref.Na.Ka.E3/A.V.No.90/06 (NP) dated 17.10.2007 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents their men, agents, servants, officials and subordinates from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 3272.5 sq. ft. in S.No.628/1A new survey No.725/1 TS No.88, new T.S.No.114, Sivakasi Village, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in ref. Na.Ka.No: E3/A.V.No:90/06 NP dated 17.10.2007 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents their men, agents, servants, officials and subordin...
N. Ravichandran Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents relating to the order of the first respondent in Proc.No.65498/Estt(DP)/A2/2010-3 dated 23.01.2013 as confirmed by the second respondent and communicated in Proc.No.27587/Estt(DP)/A1/2013 dated 26.07.2014 and quash the same.) 1. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (i) The petitioner was appointed on 23.05.1975 as Junior Engineer in the respondent Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1982, Executive Engineer in 2002, Superintending Engineer in 2008 and Chief Engineer in 2009. On 12.08.2011, the petitioner was given additional charge of Engineering Director Post and he reached superannuation on 30.11.2011. In recognition of his good work as Chief Engineer of the prestigious Hogenakkal Water Supply project, the petitioner was awarded Certificate of Appreciation by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Na...
Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. Sagunthala and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gingee, in A.S.No.5 of 2006 dated 28.07.2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Gingee in O.S.No.526 of 1995 dated 29.11.2005.) 1. The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed in O.S.No.526 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in the second appeal. (i) Are the courts below justified in dismissing the suit without considering the admitted case of the parties and the available materials on record? (ii) When the appe...
M/s. Uma Enterprises Vs. The Chairman Micro Small Enterprises Facilita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in OP.No.MSEFC/CR/45/2015 ; OP.No.MSEFC/CR/49/2013 ; OP.No.MSEFC/CR/52/2013 ; OP.No.MSEFC/CR/41/2015 ; and OP.No.MSEFC/CR/48/2013 and the orders passed there on by the 1st respondent dated 27.07.2016 ; 10.11.2014 ; 10.11.2014 ; 27.07.2016 ; and 10.11.2014 quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to refer the claim dated 08.07.2015 ; 12.08.2013 ; 29.08.2013 ; 26.06.2015 ; and 12.08.2013 respectively of the petitioner to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sec.18[3] of MSMED Act, 2006.) 1. Heard Mr. S.Elamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Viswanath, learned Government Advocate accepting notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Since the 1st respondent is a Facilitation Council, they are not required to be heard ...
P.S.K. Singaravelu Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order in S.O.(Ms).No.72, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016 and the consequential order in S.O.(Ms).No.73, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order in S.O.(Ms).No.72, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016, whereby the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 30.05.2016 until further orders and the consequential order in S.O.(Ms).No.73, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 31.05.2016, not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and retaining him in service until enquiry ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbako ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2013, passed in MCOP No.1013/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2013, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1013 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur. 2. It is a case of injury caused on account of an accident took place on 11.09.2012, around 07.15 p.m. at Aaduthurai Bus Stop. The injured victim filed a claim petition claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur, in M.C.O.P.No.1013 of 2012 and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- as total compensation. 3. C...
Ravisekaran Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Common Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 18.11.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to consider the order dated 17.09.2010 made in Review Application No.59 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.9598 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.) Common Order: M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions would aver among things that the property in Survey No.1566/33, Keelanmarainadu Village, Virudhunagar District was classified as natham land and it is an ancestral property of his family and during the UDR Survey, the portion of the property is classified as Odai and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »