Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
Damodharan and Others Vs. Kantha Bhattad and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 06.11.2015 in I.A.No.1385 and 1386 of 2015 in O.S.No.1393 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.) 1. These matters stand listed today for admission. The revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of a common order dated 06.11.2015 made by the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur in I.A.Nos.1385 and 1386 of 2015 in O.S.No.1393 of 2008 on the file of the said Court for impleading the respondents 1 and 2 as party defendants and to set aside the ex parte decree dated 23.02.2010 respectively. 2. The above said suit came to be filed by one C.Govindaraj (died) and 6 others, who were the sons and daughters of Govindaraj, against one D.Sathyadharan (died) and 2) Mrs.Kalpana W/o.Arpudharaj. Though 6 names are found in the first paragraph of the plaint as the plaintiffs,...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raja Vs. State Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 27.05.2009 passed in S.C. No. 22 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC No.1), Salem.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC No.1), Salem. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.05.2009, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs.Palaniammal. The deceased was none else than the mother-in-law of the sister of the accused. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the deceased and did not repay the same. Since the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kani Ammal (Deceased) Vs. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer:Review application is filed to review the Judgment and Decree passed by K.B.K. Vasuki, J., in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1375 of 1993, dated 16.7.2015 which was filed against the Judgement and Decree in the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.97 of 1991, dated 2.7.1993 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.4.1989 and made in O.S.No.322 of 1997 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Invoking the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., this review application is filed seeking to review the judgment and decree, dated 16.7.2015 and made in the second appeal in S.A.No.1375 of 1993 on the file of this Court. 2. The second appeal in S.A.No.1375 of 1993 was filed against the judgment and decree, dated 2.7.1993 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.97 of 1991 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 24.4.1989...
Tag this Judgment!V. Karnan Vs. T. Vivekanandhan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order, dated 28.08.2015, made in I.A.No.128 of 2014 in unnumbered First Appeal on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 28.08.2015 made in I.A.No.128 of 2014 in unnumbered First Appeal on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur. 2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the second respondent is the second defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The first respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.130 of 2010, for declaration and recovery of the suit property from the revision petitioner and the second respondent. The said Suit was decreed exparte on 04.07.2014. The revision petitioner has filed first appeal, along with the application in I.A.No.128 of 2014 to condone the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner, ...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Dutt Vs. The State of Tamilnadu through Thiru S. Krishnamoorthy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner.) This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner. 2. The minimum facts that are required for adjudicating this petition, are as follows: i) The petitioner / A2 does business in the name and style of Pesticide India Industries Limited and is a distributor of the insecticides manufactured by the 1st accused. ii) On 21.08.2007, the complainant inspected the shop of the 4th accused, who is a retailer and took samples of an insecticide in terms of Section 22 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1968) and sent one sampl...
Tag this Judgment!The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and Others Vs ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orders dated 26.03.2012 and 27.08.2012 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.13456 of 2011 and 8530 of 2012 on the file of this Court.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Challenge in these two Writ Appeals is to the Orders dated 26.03.2012 and 27.08.2012 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.13456 of 2011 and 8530 of 2012. 2. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and a Common Judgment is being passed. 3. The case of the respondent in W.A.(MD).No.489 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent school is a recognized private aided primary school. Totally, 250 students were studying and seven posts were sanctioned. On account of voluntary retirement of erstwhile Headmaster - S.Swamy, on 01.09.2009, the post of Headmaster fell vacant and in the said vacancy, one Sudha, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, was promoted and placed, with effect from 04.01.2010 a...
Tag this Judgment!M/s Hospira Health Care India Pvt Ltd, represented by the Deputy Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: W.P.No.15646 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the communication dated 28.04.2014 to the first respondent, pursuant to the communication dated 11.04.2014 of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant refund. W.P.No.26004 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the communication No.13/8/2013/EOU dated 11.04.2014 of the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. In W.P.No.15646 of 2014, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the communication dated 28.04.2014 to the first respondent, pursuant to the communication daed 11.04.2014 of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant refu...
Tag this Judgment!Indirakumar and Others Vs. State through The Inspector of Police and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in future by considering the petitioners' representation dated 13.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in future by considering the petitioners' representation dated 13.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the complaint given by one Varadarajan against these petitioners, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.57 of 2016. 4. The petitioners are directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, they shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chitra Vs. A. Anand Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. The wife is the petitioner and the husband is the respondent in the transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The husband filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, which is now pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage between them. The wife has now come forward with the present petition for transferring the said H.M.O.P. to the file of the Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with another petition filed by her, namely H.M.O.P. No. 4627 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr. J. Nandagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. J. Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. Materials available are also perused. 3. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus and their marriage was solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The H.M.O.P. for diss...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shankar Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.No.15132 of 2003.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant has focussed the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order ted 18.04.2013 in W.P.No.15132 of 2003 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order, on 18.04.2013 in W.P.No.15132 of 2003 [filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner], at paragraphs 9 to 12, had observed the following: 9. Now coming to the third charge which contains two parts, namely, (i) that in respect of premises No.25, Kavoor Vaithyanathan Street, Chintadripet which comes under 'Metered Partly Commercial Category', he has failed to record the periodical meter readings of the above said premises since the installation of water meter on 4.6.2001 and has taken the meter readings only on 24.7.2002 and however, during the period from June 2001 to July 2002, he has recorded imaginary readings in the meter led...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »