Chennai Madurai Court December 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.
V. Uma Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Labo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned rejection order No.E2/741/2011-1, dated 24.1.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the Petitioner notionally to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour based on her seniority bearing Seniority No.1289, w.e.f. The date on which her immediate junior in the cadre of Superintendent has been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour and grant further all promotions, service, monetary and other attended pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned rejection order No.E2/741/2011-1, dated 24.1.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the Petitioner notionally to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour based...
B. Balaramanan Vs. The Tahsildar, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue patta to the Petitioners property comprised in Kanam Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District covered under the Patta No.505 in S.No.149/2A, Patta No.507 in S.Nos.149/2B, 149/2D, 149/10A, 149/10B, 149/11, 149/12, 149/14A, 149/14B, 149/15A, 149/15B, 149/9, Patta No.1039 in Survey No.147/18, 147/6, Patta No.511 in Survey No.151/11B and Pallipathu Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District on the basis of his representations dated 28.10.2016 and 12.09.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to issue patta to the Petitioners property comprised in Kanam Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District covered under the Patta No.505 in S.No.149/2A, Patta No.507 in S.Nos.149/2B, 149/2D, 149/10A, 149/10B, 149/11, 149/12, 149/14A, 149/14B, 149/15A, 149/15B, 149/9, Patta No.1039 in Survey No.147/...
A. Arulmary Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the death/retirement benefits to the Petitioner in view of the representation dated 19.12.2016) 1. The benefits bestowed by law upon an employee in recognition of his committed continuous loyal and devoted duty by payment of the pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. are in the nature of property. 2. This right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law, as right to property has been recognised under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be paid in time, is reflected, in the case ofDr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P., reported in(1999) 3 SCC 438, and the observation needs as under:- ....grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of th...
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Through its Join ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005, made in A.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2004, made in O.S.No.31 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005, made in A.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2004, made in O.S.No.31 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. 2. The appellant is the 1st Defendant in O.S.No.31 of 2004, who succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the 1st Appellate Court. The 6th Respondent is the plaintiff. The Respondents 1 to 5 are the Defendants 2 to 6. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The 6th Respondent filed the suit for declaration that Sri Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Thirukoil, M...
S. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Na.Ka.No.B8/83344/2002, dated 23.07.2009, quash the same and further direct him to pay the compensation for the superstructure in survey No.513/2002, Narasingampatti Village to the petitioner as assessed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department in his proceedings letter No.293M/DB/JDO-5/F.224-A/2008, dated 08.04.2008 with interest applicable as per the National Highways Act.) 1. The land in Survey No.513/2002, Narasingampatti Village, Melur Taluk, belongs to the third respondent Panchayat. In the year 2005, the said land was subjected to acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant to the acquisition, the compensation for the land in Survey No.513/2002 was paid to the third respondent. Since the petitioner had put up the construction in the said land ...
A. Duraisamy Thevar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Public (Political ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent Vide Na.Ka.No.Y4/9832/2015, dated 12.01.2016 to direct the respondents to issue freedom fighter pension to the petitioner at the earliest.) 1. The petitioner, a freedom fighter is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 12.01.2016 denying his claim for freedom fighter pension by the State Government. 2. The petitioner who is now aged about 95 years, has sought the disbursement of freedom fighter pension by contending that he voluntarily participated in the Quit India Movement; that he was declared as a proclaimed offender and that he was remained self concealed underground for more than six months for the period from 15.12.1942 to 14.06.1943. In support of his contention, the petitioner submitted two certificates issued by two freedom fighters, namely, A.M.Lakshm...
Muniasamy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.562/2016/A4, dated 5.8.2016 and the consequential order passed in Na.Ka.No.561/2016/A4, dated 14.11.2016 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and also directing the respondent to receive increased monthly rent at the rate of 15% in addition to the original rate of rent paid by the Petitioner from July 2016.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.8.2016 and the consequential order dated 14.11.2016 fixing the lease/rent and consequentially demanding arrears from the Petitioner. 2. Mr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. According to the Petitioner, such fixation is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. Mr.S.Man...
Ramar Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,-cum-Inspector Gener ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings K:.K:.vz;.2120/ vz.5/09, dated 11.12.2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to take petitioner appeal on file by condoning the delay in filing he same and pass orders on merits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. When the petitioner had presented a document for registration before the third respondent, the same was found by the authorities to be undervalued and kept as pending document No.1007/95. It is the case of the petitioner that though the document was received by the authorities in the year 1995, they had chosen to pass an order on 30.06.2004, whereby the market value was estimated at Rs.1,59,053/-and the stamp deficit was deduced at Rs.19,090/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petition...
Kannan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.158 of 2013 dated 29.10.2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.158 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The trial court framed charges under Sections 294 (b) and 302 of I.P.C against this Appellant/ Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 29.10.2015 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six months, under Section 294 (b) has not been proved against accused. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the PW-9 Jeya is residing at Chidambaram, has 4 houses ...
A. Mohamed Sherif Sait Vs. State Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 2 to pay the adequate compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner for caused mental agony and Economy loss to the petitioner's profession by the fourth respondent and recover the same from him if so they advised.) 1. The petitioner seeks for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of damages from the respondents 1 and 2 due to the mental agony and economic loss caused by the fourth respondent, who has been arrayed in his individual capacity. 2. Considering the nature of the grievance and the allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to only approach the competent civil Court by filing an appropriate suit, if he has any justifiable claim against these respondents, as it is for the petitioner to establish all those contentions by letting in evidence. Hen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »