Chennai Court June 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.
Pavala Malliga Vs. The District Collector, Thiruchirappalli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2016 to effect necessary entries in respect of the Petitioner's property comprised in S.No.60/3G measuring an extent of 3 acres Punja lands situated in Aryamangalam Village, Thiruchirappalli District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he belongs a poor and downtrodden community and submit her application before the First Respondent/The District Collector, Thiruchirappalli District, Thiruchirappalli and after verification and necessary scrutiny, the First Respondent assigned the land in S.No.60/3, sub-divided as S.No.60/3G measuring 3 acres of Punja lands. In fact, the said lands were assigned by means of an order, dated 10.6.1974. 4. The categorical plea of the Petitioner is...
Shanthi and Others Vs. Munnusamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellanies Appeal is filed against the dismissal order dated 23.04.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.158/92 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvallur.) 1. When the matter came up before this Court on 24.10.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it was adjourned today i.e., 26.10.2016 under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Civil Miscellanies Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution....
J. Jayashree Vs. The Coordinator (Admission), The Government of Puduch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner on merits in any of the Professional Courses conducted by the CENTAC (Centralized Admission Committee) under the Domicle Category of UT of Puducherry without reference to Clause 2.5 (C) (i) and (ii) of the Information Bulletin -2016-2017 and to allow her to continue and complete the same.) 1. The petitioner, being a minor, is represented by her father and natural guardian and he has sworn to the affidavit on behalf of his daughter/petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the father of the petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Central Excise during April 1994 and was promoted as Superintendent during the year 2013 and he continues to hold the said post as on date. Though the petitioner and her father belongs to Scheduled Caste community, they are being considered only under Gene...
Arumugam and Another Vs. State represented by: The Superintendent of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayers: in Crl.O.P. No.9995 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent to withdraw or cancel the lookout notice issued on 13.03.2014 in view of the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.1272 of 2016 dated 12.04.2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. Crl.O.P. No.11675 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to seize the passport of the respondent accused Mr. P.Arumugam bearing Passport No.J 347 1805, pending disposal of the proceedings in PRC No.2 of 2015 in Kurinjipadi P.S. Crime No.228 of 2013, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court at Cuddalore.) Common Order 1. While Crl.O.P. No.9995 of 2016 is filed for a direction to the first respondent to withdraw or cancel the look out notice issued on 13.03.2014 in view of the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in Crl.M.P. No.1272 of 2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Crl.O.P. No....
T. Vimala and Others Vs. S. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 25.10.2013 made in Cr.R.P.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Sessions Court, Dindigul and set aside the same by allowing the above Criminal Revision Petition and modifying order dated 14.09.2012 made in M.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani.) 1. The revision petitioners 2 and 3, who are daughters of the respondent and the first revision petitioner, have directed this revision through their mother/first revision petitioner. 2. Family dispute arose between the first revision petitioner and the respondent. They got separated. Their daughters namely, revision petitioners 2 and 3 are with their mother. The mother and daughters have sought for maintenance in M.C.No.1 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. 3. The learned Magistrate considering the materials on record, awarded them maintenanc...
P.C. Perumalsamy Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 16.3.2016 and exhume the dead bodies buried by the Respondent No.4 at the entrance of the Petitioner's lands in S.Nos.727/8,727/9,727/10,727/11 and 727/12 situate adjacent to Reddiarchathiram-SeethamaramNal Road in Gurunathannayakanur Village, Reddiarchathiram Union, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and rebury the same in the burial ground ear-marked in the village within the time frame prescribed by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3. In respect of Respondent No.4, to avoid avoidable delay, notice is dispensed with. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he along with ...
United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. R. Jayachandran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer:Civil Miscellanies Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.775 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore.) 1. Questioning the liability the third respondent/Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The second respondent herein is the driver and the third respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle. The first respondent had moved the Claims Tribunal with a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.775 of 2008, claiming a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident, which is said to have been taken place on 20.02.2007 at about 11.00 p.m., near Sarvodaya Soap Company, involving a Honda Activa two wheeler bearing Registration No.T.N.38 AB 7562 and an Auto-Rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 37IT 7963. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company alone had contested the...
M. Pattammal Vs. G. Parthasarathy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2007 in T.O.S.No.23 of 2002.) 1. Challenge in this Original Side Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2007 passed in T.O.S.No.23 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge of this court. 2. The respondents herein as petitioners have filed O.P.No.52 of 2002 under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 and subsequently, the same has been converted into T.O.S.No.23 of 2002 wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant. 3. The material averments made in the plaint can be summarized as follows: The plaintiffs and defendant are the sons and daughter of one Govindan and he voluntarily executed a Will, dated 06-07-1990 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of immoveable property mentioned therein. The said Govindan has passed away on 03-02-1993. After his demise, the Will, dated 06-07-...
Jeba Raj and Others Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.229 of 2007 by judgment dated 24.10.2007.) 1. A1 to A3 in S.C.No.229 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, are the appellants. 2. Ultimately, after the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as detailed below. A1 to A3 are convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fined Rs.1,000/- i/d to 2 months S.I. A1 to A3 were also convicted under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced to 1 month R.I. A1 is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fined Rs.1000/- i/d to 3 months S.I. A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fined Rs.500/- in default to 1 month S.I. each. 3. Their multiple sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have paid their fine amo...
Nallathambi Vs. Annai Mary and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.63 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, dated 07.11.2012.) 1. The husband of the first respondent, who is the father of the second respondent challenges grant of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to them in M.C.No.63 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. 2. The couples were blessed with two female children. Due to their difference of opinion, the spouses got separated. The elder daughter is with the revision petitioner, while younger daughter is with the first respondent, who is the second respondent in this revision. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the first respondent/wife has unreasonably withdrawn her society from her husband. So she is not entitled to get maintenance from her husband. Even, inspite of a decree for con...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »