Chennai Court August 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.
P. Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan Vs. Kavitha and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Family Court, Dharmapuri, in F.C.M.C.No.42 of 2012.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Family Court, Dharmapuri, in F.C.M.C.No.42 of 2012, awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month to the first and second respondents respectively and Rs.50,000/- per year for the rent and other educational expenses. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner and the second petitioner herein is the daughter of the revision petitioner and they have filed a petition in F.C.M.C.No.42 of 2014 before the Family Court, Dharmapuri, claiming maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Dharmapuri, after considering the evidence and the documents produced on either side, directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5...
Marudhai and Others Vs. Kathan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai dated 23.01.2006 in A.S.No.65 of 2005 confirming the judgment and degree of the District Munsif, Kulithalai dated 27.12.2004 in O.S.No.219 of 2001.) 1. The defendants, who lost the case in both the Courts below have come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai dated 23.01.2006 in A.S.No.65 of 2005 confirming the judgment and degree of the District Munsif, Kulithalai dated 27.12.2004 in O.S.No.219 of 2001. 2. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in Thogaimalai Village in S.No.174/4 to the extent of 0.46.0 hectares and in S.No.179/11 to the extent of 0.58.0 hectares stating that the property is owned by Lakshmi and Andi Muthiriar under the sale deed dated 02.08.1980 ...
Krishnan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Kaveripakkam Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, made in S.C.No.57 of 2013, dated 11.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District. He stood charged for offences under Sections 392 read with 394 and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 11.03.2015, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2....
V. Kalidoss and Another Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary, Social Security Scheme arrears together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hono...
P. Subramaniyan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By It's Principal Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the suspension order passed by the 5th Respondent in his proceedings in C.NO. B1/12012/2007 R.O.No. 451/2007 dated 27.09.2007 and the consequential order passed by the 5th respondent in his proceedings in C.No. B1/12012/2007 R.O. No. 452/2007 dated 28.09.2007 and the consequential charge memo issued by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in j.g.vz; 07 2007 dated 13.11.2007 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner with 12 % interest forthwith.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn...
V. Parandhaman Vs. D. Umamaheswaran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.2009 made in C.S.No.832 of 2001.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned single Judge, dated 02.12.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.832 of 2001. 2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows : (i) The plaintiff was the Managing Director of M/s. Vaanavil Technology Private Ltd., (VTPL), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, which focussed in e-commerce and web technology in India and in abroad. The first defendant offered to purchase the entire business, its rights, trademark and brand of VTPL on a going concern basis. The plaintiff accepted the offer. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the first defendant and the plaintiff on 20.01.2000. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.75,00,000/- and the same to be paid as per sched...
R. Marutharaj Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakon ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay entire terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Provident Fund , Gratuity, Refund of Institute of Road Transport contribution amount and Leave Salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Ho...
P.R. Gopal Vs. S. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal made in Crl.A.No.36 of 2015, dated 29.06.2016 confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Tiruchengode made in STC.No.161 of 2013 dated 05.08.2015.) 1. The criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal made in Crl.A.No.36 of 2015, dated 29.06.2016 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Tiruchengode made in STC.No.161 of 2013 dated 05.08.2015 . 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :- The complainant is the respondent in the present revision petition. The complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode and the case was taken up on file in STC.No.161 o...
S. Mahalingam Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitab ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders upon the Petitioner's application No.19/2015 within a reasonable time fixed by this Honle Court and accordingly frame a scheme for Arulmigu Kattu Karuppanna Swamy Kovil situated at Old S.No.4/2 corresponding to New S.No.3/2, Maravankualm Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. According to the petitioners, they have filed an application No.19 of 2015 before the Respondent/Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking to frame a scheme in respect of the proper administration of Arulmigu Kattu Karuppanna Swamy Kovil. As a matter of fact, the said appli...
Rajaram Vs. Kannabiran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Common Prayer:Contempt Petitions filed to initiate Contempt Proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for wilfully disobeying the order dated 30.11.2015, passed in W.P(MD)No.21312 of 2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Respondent/Contemnor Mr.S.Kannabiran, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District is present today before this Court. 3. At this stage, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent/Contemnor brings it to the notice of this Court that the order passed in the main Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.21312 of 2015, dated 30.11.2015 was complied with. This fact is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Recording the aforesaid fact, the Contempt Petition is closed, since nothing survives for adjudication in the Contempt Petition. The presence of Mr.S.Kannabiran,Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District is dispensed with....
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »