Chennai Court September 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.
Mary Vs. Joice Mary Muthunayagam (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram in A.S.No.24 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in O.S.No.214 of 2004 and allow the Second Appeal.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.214 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint filed by the plaintiff / appellant are as follows: 2 (a). The suit property is an extent of 96 cents in Re-Survey No.517/11 and 517/4 in Attoor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and the suit is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 6/8 share in the suit property. The plaintiff / appellant stated that the suit property originally belonged to one Umaiamma Pillai. The sai...
B. Muthu Pandi Vs. The General Manager,Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the Original Documents of House Property relating to Loan No.311, on the file of M.D.(Spl) 33, Periyakulam Co-operative Housing Society to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to return the Original Documents of House Property relating to Loan No.311, on the file of M.D.(Spl) 33, Periyakulam Co-operative Housing Society to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3.The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the legal heirs of his deceased father Balu and his father availed a Mortgage Loan from the 2nd respondent to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- on executing a mortgage deed dated 28.0...
The Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic) Higher Secondary School, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 20.03.2015 made in W.P.No.17838 of 2010.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal has been filed challenging the Order passed in W.P.No.17838 of 2010 dated 20.03.2015 wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first Respondent herein. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Habibulla Badsha, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.P.Sankaran appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the submissions of Mr.S.N.Ravichandran on behalf of the first Respondent and of Mr.T.N.Rajagopal, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the second Respondent. 2. The short issue that arises in the present Writ Appeal is with regard to the challenge of the order dismissing the first Respondent from service by the Appellant School Management. The factual background of the matter revolves around a very narrow compass and a perusal of the records would reveal that the Writ Petitione...
Rajan @ Italy Rajan @ Soundarajan Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder: ad>Sl.No.Conviction under SectionSentence of imprisonmentFine1Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actten years rigorous imprisonmentRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment2Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Actone year rigorous imprisonmentRs.1,000/- , in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction of the appellant/accused is as follows: The appellant herein is a Srilankan (Tamil speaking). He is residing along with his family in Trichy. He was making...
K.K. Ramesh Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Home Secretar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to give proper protection to the railway passengers, their properties and all Railway Stations by keeping tight security and by installing CCTV cameras in all Railway Stations and Railway Police should monitor the movements of suspects in every Railway Station, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.05.2014.) M.V. Muralidaran, J 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give proper protection to the railway passengers, their properties and all Railway Stations by keeping tight security and by installing CCTV cameras in all Railway Stations and Railway Police should monitor the movements of suspects in every Railway Station, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 12.05.2014. 2. The case ...
P. Devakumar Vs. The State Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned proceeding of the fourth respondent passed vide O.Mu.NO.1872/A4/2016, dated 22.04.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman in the fifth respondent school w.e.f. 11.04.2016 with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.509/2009 dated 21.10.2008 and W.A.No.1012/2009 dated 15.10.2014.) The petitioner seeks for quashing of the proceedings of the fourth respondent in O.Mu.NO.1872/A4/2016, dated 22.04.2016 and for consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman in the fifth respondent school w.e.f. 11.04.2016 with all consequential benefits. 2. The fifth respondent is a religious minority Higher Secondary School, which comes under the Vellore Diocese. The Scho...
S. Megavannan Vs. S. Brindha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 03.06.2015 made in I.A.No.15 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Erode.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order, made in I.A.No.15 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2014, dated 03.06.2015, on the file of the Family Court, Erode, by which, an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, has been ordered to the wife, to be paid, on or before 5th of every month. Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- has been ordered. Arrears have been directed to be paid, within three months, from the date of passing of the order. 2. Material on record discloses that appellant-husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2015, for divorce. Contending inter alia, that out of the wedlock, a girl child, Devashruthi, was born on 23.03.2001 and that the respondent-wife has no source of income, to meet out the expenses to maintain herself and the child, I.A.No.367 of 2...
J. Poongodi Vs. Kalitheerthan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the Judgement dated 14.07.2006 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Villupuram District, in Crl.A.No.83 of 2005, confirming the order dated 26.09.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in C.C.No.4 of 2004.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant as against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2006 in Crl.A.No.83 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Villupuram, reversing the judgment of conviction/sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in C.C.No.4 of 2004 dated 26.09.2005. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant/complainant are as follows_ The appellant herein is a middle school teacher and she is working in Panchyat Union Middle School at Thandalaiperulvagoor, Kallakurichi. There was a dispute between the appellant's husband Jayaramakrishnan and their neighbour one E...
P. Manimaran Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the Petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN -28-20090000485 to him forthwith and thus render justice.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the Petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN -28-20090000485. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondent. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner was working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. He was allotted to work in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-3134, which was running between Trichy and Madurai. On account of an accident caused by the petitioner, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.829 of 2016 under Se...
A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and Another Vs. V. Senthil Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order and decreetal order passed by this Court on 16.12.2009 in O.A.No.118 of 2008 in C.S.No.87 of 2008.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order and decreetal order passed by this Court on 16.12.2009 in O.A.No.118 of 2008 in C.S.No.87 of 2008. 2. The facts arising out of this appeal are as under:- (i) The appellants herein are the applicants in O.A.No.118 of 2008 and plaintiffs in the suit in C.S.No.87 of 2008. The respondent herein is the respondent in O.A.No.118 of 2008 and defendant in the suit in C.S.No.87 of 2008. The application in O.A.No.118 of 2008 was filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale of masala, spices using the trademark AACHI or AARCEE or any other similar sounding expressions, pending disposal of the suit. (ii) When O.A.No.118 of 2008 came up before this Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »