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.
R. Srinivasan Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to transfer the bus plying permit in respect of the route Tirunelveli to Karayar standing in the name of Parijathammal to the name of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.22 of 2014 dated 24.09.2014.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the bus plying permit in respect of the route Tirunelveli to Karayar standing in the name of Parijathammal to the name of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.22 of 2014 dated 24.09.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.1. The petitioner is the brother's son of the original permit holder Srinivasa Naidu. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the route permit between Tirunelveli to Karaiyar was originally standing in the name of one Srinivasa Naidu and after his d...
B. Vanajakshi and Others Vs. A. Parthiban and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed u/s.25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007 made in R.C.A.No.34 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, reversing the judgment of learned Rent Controller, Nagercoil, passed in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 on 01.09.2005. 1. This revision is preferred against the judgment of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, passed in R.C.A.No.34 of 2005 on 14.02.2007. 2. It is the case of petitioners/landlords that the they are owners of non-residential building situated at Balamore Road, Nagercoil, bearing Door No.113, which was leased to respondents/tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. Respondents/tenants have paid rent by cash till November 1993 and thereafter, they have paid rent by cheque till June 2000. Since July 2000, there is wilful default in payment of rent. Respondents/tenants have also made some alterations in to the rented premises and sub-let th...
Mary Vs. The State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Murugan S/o.Narayanan, aged about 33 years old, petitioner's minor son Vijay S/o.Murugan, aged about 3 years old, petitioner's sister Mariyammal W/o.Guruvan, aged about 28 years old and petitioner's sister's husband Guruvan S/o.Mariappan aged about 36 years old before this Court and set them at liberty.) 1. The petitioner is the wife of one Mr.Murugan S/o.Narayanan, aged about 33 years and mother of one Vijay S/o.Murugan, aged about 3 years. She is the sister of one Mrs.Mariyammal, aged about 28 years. Mr.Guruvan S/o.Mariyappan is the husband of Mrs.Mariyammal. He is aged about 36 years. 2. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Mottamalai, Kalaingar Nagar, Vilacheri, Madurai District, along with her husband and two children by name Karthick, aged about 6 years and Vijay, a...
Murugesan Vs. Sathiyavathi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Family Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Family Court to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.888 of 2015 before the Family Court, Madurai for divorce. The said H.M.O.P was filed in the year 2015 and the same is pending. The above said H.M.O.P has been adjourned time to time for filing counter by the Petitioner herein. Admittedly, as on today, the Petitioner herein has not filed the counter affidavit before the trial Court in the said H.M.O.P and he undertakes to file the counter affidavit at an early date. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no chance for the re-union with the respondent by the Petitioner. The revision Petitioner's intention is to ...
P. Sivasubramanian Vs. N.N.P. Suriya Narayana Raja and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.) Common Order 1. These Revisions have been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 8.6.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2016 in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the original suit in O.S.No.395 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur against the Petitioner's deceased father Palraj, for recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioners deceased father has filed a written statement on 12.11.2009 stating that the entire suit allegation levelled against the Sitha Samaaja Karthikai Vizha Committee, Rajapalayam and they are the necessa...
Illaya Raja Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention order passed in No.172/BCCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 22.02.2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of petitioner's mother Vijayalakshmi, wife of N.Mohan, aged about 38 years, now confined in Special Prison for Woman, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set her at liberty.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 22.02.2016, passed in Memo No.172/BCDFGISSSV/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenue, by name Vijayalakshmi, wife of Mohan and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, as sponsoring auth...
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co., Vs. Jayanthi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 33 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent and the first respondent is the claimant and the second respondent/owner of the bus is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Theni. The first respondent filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012 against the appellant and the second respondent claiming a sum of Rs.11,...
Brisc-Carr Group.Inc. Vs. J.S. Shekar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 11 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court on 01.06.2015 in A.No.6373 of 2014 in C.S.(D)No.34580 of 2014.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court on 01.06.2015 in A.No.6373 of 2014 in C.S.(D)No.34580 of 2014, granting leave to the first respondent / plaintiff to sue the defendants who are living and carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: (i)The first respondent herein established a sole-proprietorship firm by name 'Lead Hospitality' to provide technical solutions to the services industry, including soft skills and strategic skill sets and also to provide consultancy and training services in India. The appellant-company is a federally incorporated company in Canada to provide premium online training to build employable skills and increase productivity and the respondents 2...
Lenin and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Theni
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment and Conviction dated 31.07.2015 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam in S.C.No.116 of 2013 and acquit the Appellants.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants two in numbers, who were tried for the offence under sections 341, 302, 506(ii) and 341, 302 R/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC respectively. After full trial the learned Trail Court by its Judgment dated 31.07.2015, the 2 accused were found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 302 R/w 34 of IPC. As the accused/appellants found guilty, the learned Trail court imposed life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC., and also imposed fine of Rs 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months of rigorous imprisonment is imposed upon the 1st Appellant. As for as the 2nd appellant is concerned, he was also imposed similar punishment as imposed upon the 1st Appell...
Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (Women), Rep. by its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 30.08.2016 passed in Contempt Petition No.1497 of 2016 and W.P.No.23770 of 2016 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment 1. The endeavour of the appellant to convert from a Diploma B.Ed. degree course to an one year B.Ed. degree course and thereafter, to the now prevailing two years B.Ed. course seems to have no end, as, on one pretext or the other, the appellant has been denied the right to carry on the course. 2. We may note that it is as early as on 01.09.2011 that the appellant moved an application for starting the one year B.Ed. degree course. But the same was kept pending and then, rejected beyond the time prescribed under the Regulations in terms of an order dated 13.01.2012. The appellant assailed this order in a writ petition, but the same was dismissed on 04.06.2012, which resulted in the writ appeal being filed against the same, in which interim orders were granted on 16.10.2012 di...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »