Chennai Court October 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.
Thilrasbanu Vs. Sulthan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Mudukulathur.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011, dated 17.3.2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Mudukulathur. 2. According to the Petitioner, the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Mudukulathur for declaration and injunction against the respondents 3 and 4 and the above said suit is pending before the said Court. While so, the Petitioner herein has filed an impleading application in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 to implead himself as third respondent in the main suit. According to the Petitioner, that in the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner's property is also sho...
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai Vs. A.K. Krishnamurthy and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in E.P.No.12 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1994 dated 28.04.2015 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the order passed in E.P.No.12 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1994 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the 2nd Judgment Debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner submitted that the calculation adopted by the Executing Court is erroneous and that the Executing Court ought not have awarded interest on solatium as held by the Division Bench in the unreported judgment made in C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.617 to 623 of 2007 dated 28.11.2014, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: 20. The claim of ...
C. Panneerselvam Vs. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 made in A.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2005 in O.S.No.508 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 in A.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the second Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 06.09.2005 in O.S.No.508 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. 2. Suit for recovery of money. 3. The averments in brief of the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff owns agricultural land and raises groundnut crops in the land. The defendant is having a Mill by name 'Manonmani Vidhai Manila Udayappu Mill' and the plaintiff has been supplying groundnuts to the defendant for the last five or six ...
B. Rajalakshmi Vs. Branch Manager, City Union Bank Limited, and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 in DRC No.47/2015, on the file of 2nd respondent Debts Recovery Tribunal III at Chennai and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Correctness of order of attachment of immovable property passed in DRC No.47 of 2015 dated 08.08.2016, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal- III, Chennai, can always be tested under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which is reproduced hereunder. 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal: PROVIDED that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower: PROVIDED FURTH...
The Chief General Manager, National Centre for Next Generation and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent Tribunal, dated 05.01.2016 in O.A.No.470 of 2014 and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the order, dated 05.01.2016, made in O.A.No.470 of 2014, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while quashing the pay fixation order of the Chief General Manager, National Centre for Next Generation, New Delhi, 1st respondent herein, issued in No.ND/NCES/10-77/PF/URR/193, dated 13.04.2009, directed the petitioners to issue a fresh pay fixation order, without withdrawing the benefit of two advance increments granted in 1990 and arrange to pay the balance retirement benefits to the 1st respondent, within a period of two months, from the date of passing of the order. 2. The 1st respondent is a retired Divisional Engineer, BSNL, RCES, Chennai. Consequent on his acquiring Engineering Degree, ...
Rajendran Vs. Manimala
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2013 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2013 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The Petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2013 for divorce before the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai against the respondent herein. The said H.M.O.P was filed in the year 2013. The respondent filed counter statement in the month of October 2014.The Petitioner's side evidence commenced on 8.1.2015 and thereafter posted for cross-examination on 9.1.2015. Thereafter, the said case is adjourned from time to time and finally posted on 14.09.2016 and that the said H.M.O.P is pending before the trial Court for the past three years before the trial Court. Hence the Petitioner has come forward with the present Civil...
Thangaraj Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the judgment dated 23.12.2014 made in S.C.No.40 of 2013, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and set aside the same.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.40/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The trial court framed charges under Section 302, 449 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 23.12.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 449 of I.P.C to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The set off was allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence ...
K. Venkatesan and Others Vs. E. Hemantharaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.01.2016 in un-numbered E.A.SR.No.10378 of 2015 in E.P.No.112 of 2015 in O.S.No.2985 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.) 1. Challenging the order passed in un-numbered E.A.SR.No.10378 of 2015 in E.P.No.112 of 2015 in O.S.No.2985 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, the Judgment Debtors 3 and 4 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.2985 of 1997, the plaintiff filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.112 of 2015. In the said Execution Petition, the Judgment Debtors filed an un-numbered E.A.SR.No.10378 of 2015 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Executing Court, going into the merits of the matter, rejected the petition filed by the Judgment Debtors. Against this order, the Judgment Debtors 3 and 4 have filed the above Civil Revision ...
Private Medical Practitioners Association of India, New Delhi and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayers: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from enforcing the penal provisions of the Indian Medical Counsel (sic) Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in the case of unqualified medical practitioners who are members of the petitioner association in the State of Tamil Nadu. Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners without following any due process of law.) Common Order: 1. While the writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from enforcing the penal provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in the case of unqualified medical practitioners, who are members of the petitioner association in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to direct the respondent not to harass the pe...
The Madurai Diraviyam Thayumanavar Hindu College rep.by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.26627/G3/2006-2, dated 07.01.2008, the proceeding of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.01060/E1/2008, dated 12.03.2008, and consequential proceedings of the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.9194/E1/2009, dated 24.11.2009, and quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the fourth respondent as Stenographer from the date of his appointment in the petitioner's College with effect from 07.01.2008 and to regularize his services in the post of Stenographer with effect from the date of his initial appointment on 07.01.2008 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. The writ petitioner is an aided College. The post of Stenographer in the petitioner College fell vacant in the year 2003. The second respnodent, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.17378/F2/2007, dated 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »