Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: domestic violence Court: chennai Page 7 of about 185 results (0.020 seconds)

B. Anitha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District an ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... the petitioner herein filed a complaint under sections 18, 10, 20, 22 of the prevention of women from domestic violence act, 2005. .....

Baranichandran and Others Vs. Susila

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... in this connection, she sought for certain reliefs under the domestic violence act, before the learned judicial magistrate, thiruvaiyaru. .....

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 .....

Karuppusamy Vs. A. Mallika

Court : Chennai

..... respondent/wife has further contended that she had filed an application under the domestic violence act, claiming certain reliefs. .....

Somarajan and ors. Vs. Management of A.R.C. Engineering Works, Ambattu ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1981)IILLJ25Mad

..... then call upon the management to let in evidence to prove the misconduct and give an opportunity to the workmen as well enquiry held is defective it will not be open to the management to rely upon the evidence recorded at the domestic enquiry which has been found to be vitiated and then come to its own conclusion whether on such evidence the workmen can be said to be guilty of misconduct and them inflict a punishment on them. ..... the failure to give a second show cause notice as required by rule 17 (4) (c) of the model standing orders was not fatal to the order of dismissal passed by the management a domestic enquiry commences with the issue of the charge sheet and comes to an end with the submission of the report of the enquiry officer. ..... in this context, the learned counsel emphasised the fact that the labour court has considered the evidence recorded at the domestic enquiry against each of 17 workmen and has found each one of the workmen and has found each one of the workmen guilty of riotous and disorderly ..... the light of the said powers it would be open to the labour court to consider on the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry whether the workman is guilty of misconduct alleged against him and whether the punishment inflicted against him is proportionate to the proved misconduct. ..... the labour found that a proper domestic enquiry was held and that the enquiry officer rightly found that the workmen were guilty of acts of violence and riotous and disorderly behavior. .....

Chandrasekar B. Vs. Management of Parry and Company Ltd. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2002)ILLJ658Mad

..... has to be decided whether such charges so made by the employer are true, proper and regular, would be a domestic one, in which certain charges of misconduct are levelled against the: employee, and without violence to the principles of natural justice, a fair trial is held, and thereafter an ultimate conclusion is arrived at on ..... in the case before the supreme court the appellate authority has interfered with the order of discharge/dismissal of the respondent therein on the ground only that a domestic enquiry was not held into the imputations made against the respondent and he did not decide the application of the employer for recording evidence. ..... authority after noting the order of termination, particularly reason for termination of service of the second respondent is due to 'lack-lustre performance' and after holding the management had not conducted domestic enquiry to prove that the second respondent's performance was not satisfactory; set aside the order of termination of the second respondent by the management. ..... the writ petition is whether the appellate authority is right in setting aside the order of termination of the second respondent merely on the ground that there is no domestic enquiry to prove that his performance was not satisfactory9. ..... error in disposing of the application of the appellant for additional evidence and proceeding to dispose of the appeal on the ground that the order of dismissal having been passed without holding a domestic enquiry, was bad in law. .....

United Wire Ropes Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Co ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1976)ILLJ226Mad

..... the enquiry which is necessary to adjudge whether such accusations are true, proper and regular, would be a domestic one, in which certain charges of misconduct are levelled against the employee, and without violence to the principles of natural justice, a fair trial is held, and hereafter an ultimate conclusion is arrived at on the matter in issue. .....

R.Saraswathi Vs. 1.P.Sumithra Devi

Court : Chennai

before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:10. 01/2013 coram the honourable mr.justice g.rajasuria c.r.p.(pd)(md)no.2516 of 2012 and m.p.(md)no.1 of 2012 r.saraswathi .. petitioner vs 1.p.sumithra devi 2.r.prabhu ganesh 3.r.pradeep 4.renganathan (r2 and r4 are given up as they are not necessary parties) .. respondents civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india against the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate not i, tirunelveli, tirunelveli district in m.c.no.18 of 2010 vide his order dated 20.11.2012. #for petitioner ... mr.r.anand :order heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would implore and entreat by pointing out that he would be satisfied if liberty is given to the revision petitioner to approach the same magistrate under section 25(2) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, to get the impugned order varied and modified. 2.in view of the submission made, this revision is disposed of granting liberty to the revision petitioner to approach the magistrate. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs. km to the judicial magistrate not i, tirunelveli, tirunelveli district.

A. Uma Maheshwari Vs. R. Muthuraj

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... the contention of the petitioner is that she filed crl.m.p.no.1459 of 2016 before the judicial magistrate no.ii, nagercoil under the domestic violence act and the same is pending. .....

S. Arunkumar and Others Vs. G. Menaga

Court : Chennai

(prayer: civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india to set aside the administrative order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned principal subordinate judge, cuddalore directing the office to number the petition filed by the respondent/petitioner under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 as o.p.no.145 of 2012 and consequently, dismiss the same.) 1. the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this civil revision petition. he also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle. in view of the same, the civil revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.