Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
G.R. Indira Vs. G.R. Balasubramaniam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 06.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.66 of 2016 in O.S.No.529 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.66/2016 in O.S.No.529/2004 on the file of the trial court, namely Court of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The said application came to be filed for eschewing the evidence of DW3 on the ground that his evidence in the chief examination in the form of proof affidavit was wrongly accepted by the court below when the proof affidavit had not been attested. The learned trial Judge, without passing an order either allowing or dismissing the said application, passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2016 to the effect that the application would be disposed along with the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the original suit, has com...
Tag this Judgment!P. Saroja and Others Vs. S. Rengaraj and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.575 of 1997 dated 13.09.2004 in E.P.No.164 of 1992 in O.S.No.599 of 1981 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai and allow the same.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in E.A.No.575 of 1997 dated 13.09.2004 in E.P.No.164 of 1992 in O.S.No.599 of 1981, in dismissing the amendment application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, to amend the Schedule of the property. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction to amend the E.P and the power of the amendment is vested only with the trial Court. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to note that the respondents 2 and 3 in E.P are impleaded, in which, ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arockiyaporabu Vs. The Tahsildar, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 11.01.2016 submitted to the respondent for the demarcation of the property for issuing patta within a time frame as fixed by this Court.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 11.01.2016 submitted to the respondent for the demarcation of the property for issuing patta. 2. Mr.M.Rajarajan learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 5. In view of the limited scope of the prayer, the re...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajangam Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Trichy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to effect corrections in the UDR entries of the petitioner's landed properties as per the recommendations made by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A3-1255-2015 dated 16.10.2015 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2016 within a period that may be fixed by this Court.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to directing the first respondent to effect corrections in the UDR entries of the petitioner's landed properties as per the recommendations made by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A3-1255-2015 dated 16.10.2015 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2016. 2. Mr.S.Kumar learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned counsel appearing on...
Tag this Judgment!T. Veilumuthu and Others T.Thangamani and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.816 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District and Sessions Court cum Communal Classes Court at Madurai and praying to set aside the Decree and Judgment of the disallowed portion of compensation by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.) 1. The present appeal is filed by the claimants against the Award, dated 26.03.2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.816 of 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District and Sessions Court-cum- Communal Classes Court at Madurai for enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are the claimants in MCOP No.816 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District and Sessions Court-cum-Communal Clashes Court at Madurai. The first respondent is the owner TVS Sports TN 58 Z 8554 involved in the accident, which was insured wi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Malliga Vs. The Chief Regional Manager Chennai LPG Regional Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Fair and decreetal order dated 20.11.2009 in O.P. No. 2998/2011.) R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to set aside the arbitral award passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator against the present appellant. 2. A Dealership Agreement was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent on 10.07.2000, whereby dealership of H.P. Gas was awarded to the appellant herein. Due to violation of the terms of the said dealership agreement, the dealership was terminated on 16.06.2008. The claim of the appellant before the Arbitrator was for restoration of the dealership, since the termination was illegal. A counter claim was filed by the first respondent seeking payment of Rs.10,80,028/- with interest. The Arbitrator, by award dated 10.1.2009, upheld the order of termination of dealership and allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadachi Vs. The Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil Nadu ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein concerned in No.C2/19134/2015 dated 28.9.2015 and quash the order of detention passed therein by the 2nd respondent herein against the detenu by name Subramanian, son of Aiyakannu, aged 45 years, produce before this Court and setting him at liberty now detained in Central Prison, Vellore.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Subramanian, aged 45 years, son of Aiyakannu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in No.C2/19134/2015 dated 28.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinith and Another Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Kanniyaku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records connected with the case in Crime No.109 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police in so far as the petitioners are concerned and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records connected with the case in Crime No.109 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police in so far as the petitioners are concerned and quash the same as illegal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the District Educational Officer, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2015 on 23.11.2015 under Section 380 IPC. It is the case of the defacto complainant that laptops that were intended for distribution to poor school students were kept stored in the school godown and on opening the godown on ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muniyadi Vs. State rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Virudhunaga ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur and quash the same as illegal as far as this petitioner is concerned.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur and quash the same as illegal as far as this petitioner is concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that charge sheet has already been filed in this case, which was taken on file in C.C.No.68 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Srivilliputhur. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Mani and Another Vs. The State Represented by its The Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pudhucherry at Karaikal in S.C.No.103 of 2012 dated 15.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.103 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 382, 120-B, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 15.03.2013, the trial Court convicted them and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C.; to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each and in defaul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »