Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
Mercy Vs. P. Selvakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw and transfer the case in HMOP.No.1156 of 2015 pending on the file Family Court, Chennai to Sub Court, Madurai.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Transfer CMP is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Raja Vs. The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Pudkkott ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely, Adal padal scheduled to be held on 03.04.2016 at night in connection with Poochorithal Festival in Arulmigu Sri Vettaikattu Mariamman Kovil at Meputhagudi Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2016.) This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely, Adal padal scheduled to be held on 03.04.2016 at night in connection with Poochorithal Festival in Arulmigu Sri Vettaikattu Mariamman Kovil at Meputhagudi Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct Adal Padal on 03.04.2016...
Tag this Judgment!Veerammal Vs. The Tahsildar, Karur District
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 Survey the land in old Survey No.245/1 in new Survey No.527/1 at Mela Theru, Telungapatti Porunthalur Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District sub-divided the same and issue patta in favour of the petitioner and her three sisters namely Maryaee, Maruthayee and Pattu, pursuant to the representation dated 20.11.2015 of the petitioner herein and the proceedings of the respondent dated 28.12.2015 and the reply of the petitioner dated 11.03.2016.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to Survey the land in old Survey No.245/1 in new Survey No.527/1 at Mela Theru, Telungapatti Porunthalur Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District sub-divided the same and issue patta in favour of the petitioner and her three sisters namely Maryaee, Maruthayee and Pattu, pursuant to the representation dated 20.11.2...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumaran Vs. Madhava Shastri (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2, r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014, passed in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009 on the file of this Court.) 1. This Review Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014, passed in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009. 2. The review petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.(MD) No.333 of 2009 and first defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2007. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 2 and 3. One Madhava Shastri, the first respondent and the fourth respondent herein, filed the abovesaid suit, for injunction, restraining the review petitioner/1st defendant in the suit and the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 3. Facts of the case: (i) Ganapathi Iyer, who was the father of Madhava Shastri, the first respondent herein and his brother Vasudevan, was the owner of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathiyalagan and Others Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in SC.No.232/2010 dated 04.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are arrayed as A1 to A3 in SC.No.232/2010 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The Trial Court framed the following charges against the accused:- ad>Sl.NoRank of the AccusedCharges Framed1A1 to A3120[B] IPC-Committing criminal conspiracy.2A1 and A2341 IPC-Committing wrongful restraint.3A1 to A3302 IPC-Committing murder.4A1 to A3Alternative charge: 302 r/w 34 IPC-committing murder in furtherance of common intention.5A1 to A3201 IPC-Causing disappearance of evidence of murder. By judgment dated 04.03.2013, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- ad>Rank of the AccusedConviction under sectionSentence AwardedA1 to A3120[B] IPCEach of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default...
Tag this Judgment!S. Bose Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to consider the representation and direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural programme Adal Padal and drama on 05.04.2016 in the event of festival of Sri Muthalamman and Sri Pattalamman Temple at Sitharkal Natham Village, Malliyampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul without causing any disturbance to public order.) This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to consider the representation and direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural programme Adal Padal and drama on 05.04.2016 in the event of festival of Sri Muthalamman and Sri Pattalamman Temple at Sitharkal Natham Village, Malliyampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul without causing any disturbance to public order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct Adal Padal on 05.04.2016 in connection with a festival of Sri ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiran Vs. State Represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai to pass order on the bail petition filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.120 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai to pass order on the bail petition filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.120 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v)a of SC/ST Act in Crime No.120 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer. 3. Learned Government ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Banumathi and Another Vs. K. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur, in I.A.No.604 of 2010 in O.S.No.276 of 2010, dated 06.09.2010.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 06.09.2010, made in I.A.No.604 of 2010 in O.S.No.276 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Karur. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit in O.S.No.276 of 2010, to declare that they have the easementary rights to periodical proper maintenance such as white washing, plastering and repairing the outer side of the western side wall of the suit properties and injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the rights of the respondents for periodical maintenance of western wall. 3. The respondents filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner was app...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Maheswari and Others Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.2012 in S.C.No.508 of 2011 on the file of XVII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, convicting the appellants u/s 302 and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment; u/s 201 IPC to undergo 3 years R.I. and also fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months S.I. to run concurrently.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.508 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. They stood charged for offences under Sections 120(b), 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 30.04.2012, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from the charge under Section 120(b) IPC, however, convicted them under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in...
Tag this Judgment!R. Janakiraman Vs. S. Uma Rani and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable order dated 07.09.2015 made in I.A.No.187 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Madurai.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the fair and executable order dated 07.09.2015 made in I.A.No.187 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 by the learned VI- Additional District Judge, Madurai. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2011, for declaration of title based on the Will dated 24.04.1995, recovery of possession and partition of 1/5th share of gold ornaments and for permanent injunction. The respondents filed written statement and two additional written statements and contesting the suit. At the time of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 under Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. to direct the respondents/defendants to begin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »