Chennai Court November 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.
R.S. Lenin Vs. The Zonal Manager, M/s. Bank of Maharashtra, Channai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Cautionary list issued by the second respondent M/s Bank of Maharashtra vide letter Ref.No.AX1/Cr.Mon/Third Party Entity/2015/16, letter dated 21.11.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of valuers.) 1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the Cautionary list issued by the second respondent M/s Bank of Maharashtra vide letter Ref.No.AX1/Cr.Mon/Third Party Entity/2015/16, letter dated 21.11.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of valuers. 2. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as panel Valuer for a period of three years. Normally, he was entitled for extension for further period. In the meanwhile, by communication dated 21.11.2015 addr...
S. Vijaya Antony Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.Aa2/4795/2015, dated 15.10.2015, with relating to the petitioner's property in survey Nos.30/30 and 30/31 of Alamarthupatti Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar alone and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property in Survey Nos.30/30 and 30/31 of Alamarthupatti Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar.) Order: 1. The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the second respondent cancelling the order of assignment granted to the petitioner. 2. Originally, the land in dispute has been assigned in favour of one Tamilselvi and Subbiah Nadar by the third respondent in 1992. The petitioner purchased the above land in the year 2015 from the original assignee. Before conveying the...
S. Thirumalai Vs. S. Govindarajan (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2001 made in O.S.No.120 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, is the appellant in the above First Appeal. 2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999 for partition of his share in the suit properties. The suit properties consist of two items. Item 1 is a house property and item 2 consists of three different properties of agricultural land in different survey numbers in Keerakollai Village in Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District. 3. The case of the appellant is that he and the defendant are brothers and that they jointly purchased the suit properties under two registered sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, the first item was purchased on 14.10.1970 and the second item was purchased on 20.11.1972 jointly in the name of plainti...
P. Paramasivan Vs. Ramalakshmi and Anothner
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the common judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998, made in A.S.Nos.135, 134 and 131 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the common judgment and decree, dated 28.02.1997, made in O.S.Nos.61 of 1993, 131 of 1994 and 59 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. These Second Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998, made in A.S.Nos.135, 134 and 131 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the common judgment and decree, dated 28.02.1997, made in O.S.Nos.61 of 1993, 131 of 1994 and 59 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as appellant [P.Paramasivan], first respondent [S.Kandasamy] and second resp...
A. Liyakath Ali Vs. The Passport Officer, The Regional Passport Office ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue fresh passport to the petitioner, in view of the Application No.MD 1079185088916, dated 03.03.2016, within the period stipulated by this Court by considering the representation given by the petitioner, dated 16.08.2016.) 1. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue fresh passport. 2. According to the petitioner, he has obtained five passports and thereafter, he surrendered all the passports. Subsequently, somebody obtained a passport in his name, for which, his passport was canceled. Now, he approached the second respondent and filed a fresh application seeking passport. Since no order has been passed, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, wherein it has been specifically stated at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as follows:- (10) It is ...
Sumathi Ravichandran Vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, CBI AC ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records C.C.No.29 of 2011 on the file of the VIII Additional Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the same.) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn....
S. Mahesh Vs. he Chairman cum Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Memo No.CORP/D.(power)/0623/2010 dated 7.7.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) 1. Prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Memo No.CORP/D.(power)/0623/2010 dated 7.7.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition is as follows:- (i) The petitioner having completed Diploma in Engineering in the First Class in the year 1987 attended the interview called by the respondent Corporation for the appointment of the post of Diploma Engineer/Trainee Gr.II (Electrical). The petitioner claims that he belonged to Kondareddy Caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community and he attended the interview and was selected for the said post. Though the petitioner did not produce the original certificate claiming his communi...
Sajjan M. Sharma, Prop. SMS Corporation Vs. The Authorised Officer, La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2522 of 2015, dated 03.06.2015, pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to redeem the property.) N. Authinathan, J. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2522 of 2015, dated 03.06.2015, pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to redeem the property. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of SMS Corporation. He has availe...
Jeevarathinam Vs. Rasambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge at Puducherry in A.S.No.3 of 2008 dated 23.10.2008 in confirming the judgement and decree of the Additional Sub-judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.13 of 1990 dated 19.11.2007.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgement and decree dated 23.10.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry confirming the judgement and decree dated 19.11.2007 made in O.S.No.13 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for partition. 3. The averments contained in the plaint in brief are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather Narayana Gounder S/o. Ramu Gounder as per the registered sale deed dated 15.03.1906. The above said Narayana Gounder died leaving behind two sons viz., Gangamuthu Goun...
Chinnadaikkan Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Natham Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-07-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 30.11.2012, made in S.C.No.268 of 2010, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.268 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. He stood charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act. By judgment dated 30.11.2012, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this...
- ‹ Prev
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- Next ›
- Last »