Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: domestic violence Court: chennai Page 19 of about 185 results (0.044 seconds)

Churchil John Wesley Raj. Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Court : Chennai

..... if it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court .....

M. Ramasamy and Others Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Na ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2012(8)MLJ628

..... . union of india (1987) 4 scc 463, this court observed that the effluent discharged in river ganga from a tannery is ten times noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any urban area on its banks .....

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

Court : Chennai

..... . upon the other hand, we have recently upheld a patent to one who took a torsional spring, such as had been previously used in clocks, doors, and other articles of domestic furniture, and applied it to telegraph instruments, the application being shown to be wholly new .....

Dr. D. Rajamanickam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Commissioner ...

Court : Chennai

..... witness agreed to do so because he was in adverse circumstances and in need of money to look after his domestic needs. .....

K.Ravi Petitioner Vs. K.Victoria and ors.

Court : Chennai

order1. the legal representative of the petitioner in i.a.no.434 of 2002 in o.s.no.114 of 2002 on the file of the district munsif, thiruvottiyur is the revision petitioner.2. the suit in o.s.no.236 of 1988 (later re-numbered as o.s.no.114 of 2002) was filed by one kannappan, claiming to be the owner of the suit property, for recovery of possession. the case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant in that suit viz., venkiah alias venkatesalu was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site and without the consent of the plaintiff, the said tenant venkiah alias venkatesalu sublet the portion of the land let out to him and also sold the superstructure to one krishnan nair and the second defendant bhakyam, who claims to be the wife of krishnan nair, was only a sub-tenant and she is not entitled to the benefits of tamil nadu city tenants protection act and the main tenant was not in possession of the property and therefore, the suit was filed for the relief prayed for.3. the second defendant bhakyam filed a statement stating that she is a tenant under the plaintiff kannappan and her husband put up the superstructure and after the death of her husband, she is in possession of the property in the capacity of tenant and as his legal heir, she is entitled to claim the status of a tenant and she also filed application under section 9 of the tamil nadu city tenants protection act for purchasing the vacant land as she is entitled to the benefits of that act and the .....