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.
Perumal Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 22.09.2016, passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would submit among other things that out of 82 Cents comprised in Survey Nos.1748/1B and 1748/2A of Andipatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, he had purchased a portion of 42 Cents on the western side of the said land, under a registered Sale Deed, dated 16.04.1992, from the family members of one Athiappan Servai and he has also obtained Patta in his name vide Patta Nos.2088 and 2618 and he has been paying necessary...
Kanagu and Another Vs. Daniel John and Another
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 set aside the docket order dated 7.9.2016 and to direct the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi to number the unnumbered O.S.No....of 2016.) 1. This revision is filed against the docket order, dated 7.9.2016 and to direct the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi to number the unumbered O.S.No....of 2016. 2. The revision petitioners herein has filed a suit for partition and for separate possession of the suit property. The Subordinate court, Thoothukudi has returned the plaint on 15/9/2015 stating as follows: Returned: 1. How the suit is maintainable to be stated. Since partition asked to the purchaser, not to the co-sharer is to be stated. 2. Court fee paid to be corrected. 3. Fresh docket sheet to be attached Represented one month. 3. Again on 23.09.2015, the plaint was represented. After several returns and representations, the plaint was finally returned on 7.9.2016 stating that: Return...
Harichandran Vs. M. Kanagaraj
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 set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi dated 15.3.2016.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, dated 15.03.2016, filed under Order 18 Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code, to scrap the chief examination of P.W.1. 2. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court without adverting to the scope of Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. The learned Rent Controller has completely over-looked the fact that the person who has now filed the proof affidavit is totally a stranger to the proceedings and the purpose for examining the third party is not for any genuine reason, but only to fill up the lacunae, at a later stage while ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Madurai Vs. S. Gnanaprakasam and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai. 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 respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants and the fifth respondent/owner of the lorry is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge - Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai. The...
The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Company, Dharmapuri Distric ...
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 20.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 429 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.429 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant/Insurance Company is the third respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants and the fourth respondent/rider of the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle is the first respondent and the fifth respondent/owner of the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.429 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai. The responden...
V. Ganesan Vs. A. Meenal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree dated 05.12.2014 made in A.S.No.109 of 2012 on the file of sub-Court, Sivagangai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.09.2012 made in O.S.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Siavagangai.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in the above second appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the appellant that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's mother, one Oyyammal D/o.Periyakaruppan. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was given to her mother as Stridhana by her father. Since the patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff's mother, the reven...
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd., Chennai and Others Vs. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in E.P.No.62 of 2014 dated 23.11.2015 by allowing O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi.) 1. Challenging the order passed in E.P.No.62 of 2014 in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, the Judgment Debtors 1 to 3 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2011 for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to cancel the Mortgage Deed dated 16.05.2002 executed by the plaintiff in their favour; for mandatory injunction to hand over the original documents to the plaintiff; for further direction to the 4th defendant in case of failure on the part of the defendants 1 to 3, to cancel the said Mortgage Deed and for damages from the defendants 1 to 3. 3. After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit. So far as Clause-4 of the decree is concerned, the defe...
Tavidan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 25.06.2015, made in S.C.No.55 of 2015, by the learned II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.) 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. There were two other accused by name Krishnasamy and Paulraj, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused as under: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 to A3U/s.341 IPC2A2 and A3U/s.294(b) IPC3(a) A2 and A3U/s.302 r/w 109 IPC (b) A1U/s.302 IPC 2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 25.6.2015, convicted the first accused under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month...
M. Arumugam and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Principal Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer: in W.P.No.25775 of 2016: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the services rendered by the petitioner in the post of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police for seniority, fixation of salary and granting of Selection Grade scale of pay and other service benefits by including the name of the petitioner in the B list from the date of temporary promotion as on 20.04.1999 by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.07.2009. Prayer in W.P.No.25776 of 2016: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the services rendered by the petitioner in the post of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police for seniority, fixation of salary and granting of Selection Grade scale of pay and other service benefits by including the name of the petitioner in the B list from...
Senthilkumar and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 27.10.2014, made in S.C.No.347 of 2010, by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.347 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused as under: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A1 and A2U/s.498-A IPC2A1U/s.302 IPC3A2U/s.302 r/w 34 IPC 2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 27.10.2014, convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »