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.
T. Elangovan Vs. S. Ponnambalam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012, dated 22.12.2014, on the file of VI Addl.Sub-Judge(Trainee District Judge), Madurai.) Order: 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012, dated 22.12.2014, on the file of VI Addl.Sub-Judge(Trainee District Judge), Madurai. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2014 in O.S.No.1159 of 2012 under Order 11 Rule 14 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking for a direction to the petitioner to produce documents maintained by him containing his admitted signature in his official or normal course for the period contemporaneous to 13.5.2005 and to disclose any other document in his custody. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner h...
K. Subramanian Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of revised rate of dearness allowance at the rate of 100% to the petitioner instead of 90% as per G.O.Ms.No.55, Transport (D) Department dated 04.06.2014 and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the petitioner difference in salary and also difference in retiral benefits including gratuity, leave salary, commuted value of pension by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on his pay/wages at the rate of 100% instead of 90% within a stipulated time.) 1. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent corporation as Casual Labourer on daily wage basis with effect from 21.05.1979; that his service was confirmed in the post of Cleaner from 01.11.1980; that he was promoted as Tradesman and subsequently as Senior Tradesman and he retired from service on 31.03.2014 in the said post and the petitioner ...
T.R. Bhuvaneshwari Vs. Punjab National Bank Assets Recovery Management ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2009 in A.No.318 of 2007 in I.P.Nos.134 and 77 of 2002.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2009 in A.Nos.318 of 2007 in I.P.Nos.134 and 77 of 2002, along with the other applications of the first respondent bank, allowing the claim of the bank to the extent of Rs.3,19,23,571.05 out of Rs.3,79,11,492.64, in respect of the sale of the appellant's property by way of public auction. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: (i) The appellant was declared as insolvent in two matters. The total claim arrived at by the bank was Rs.3,79,11,492.64. The interest rate claimed by the bank was based on the contractual agreement entered into between the bank and the insolvent. The amount claimed by the bank also includes law charges, paper publication charges and charges towards pos...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. C.S. Periyasamy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Karur filed the present C.M.A. No. 367 of 2007 and the claimant has filed Cross Objection No.43 of 2009, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 211 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Karur. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the first respondent met with an accident and sustained multiple grievous injuries and fractures. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant questioned the fact that the vehicle met with an accident did not possess fitness certificate and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated and the liability is to be fixed on the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal though considered the fact that there is no fitness certificate and the second respondent/owner of the vehicle failed to establish that the vehicle was in possession of valid fitness certificate, fixed the liability to the appellant/Insurance company, which is...
The General Manager, Union of India, Chennai and Others Vs. The Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of certiorari, to call for the entire records of the order, dated 27.04.2015, passed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.268 of 2012 and quash the same as illegal.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Vide order, dated 27.04.2015, in O.A.No.268 of 2012, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, while quashing the orders, dated 30.11.2011 and 22.12.2011, directed the petitioners to restore the 2nd respondent's basic pay at Rs.14,860/-, with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-, in the Pay Band of Rs.9,300-34,800, with Grade pay of Rs.4,200/-, w.e.f. 01.01.2012, within a period of three months, from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order, Railways have preferred the present writ petition. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that the 2nd respondent, Mr.M.Rajendran, was appointed as Gangman, in Scale of Pay of Rs.196-232, under Section Engineer, Permanent Way, Tiruthuraipoondi, ...
Reshma Begam and Others Vs. Syed Nawab Jan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the Execution Petition in E.P.No.91 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy and transferring the same to the file of Third Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.743 of 2016.) 1. The present petition seeking transfer is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to transfer E.P.No.91 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.64 of 2011 pending before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy to the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.743 of 2016. 2. The facts in nutshell in the present case on hand is that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are minor children of the 1st petitioner. The father of respondents 1 and 2 is Syed Hussain. He and his wife, Banubi purchased the subject property bearing old door No.4G, new door No.20, Rahmaniapuram, Thiruchirappalli th...
Chennai Katradi Urpathiyalargal Virpanaiyalargal Sangam, Rep. by its P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer:Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2015 in accordance with law.) 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2015. 2.According to the petitioner he is the president of a Sangam / Association known as "Chennai Katradi Urpathiyalargal Virpanaiyalargal Sangam". The members of the said association / sangam are manufacturers of kites and threads for several years. According to him, kite making is a recognised industry and thus kite flying is a hobby to many and is being considered as a sport. According to him, no law prohibits making, selling and flying of kites and the only prohibition is against the use of Manja Threads. According to him, their association strictly adheres the principle ...
B. Rajasekaran Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made in O.A.No.310/00347/2014 dated 22.07.2016, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, declined to quash the charge memo dated 21.02.2013, issued by the Superintendent of Post Office, Pudukottai Division, Pudukottai, the 5th respondent herein, and the order dated 10.01.2014 of the Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai, rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner dated 07.10.2013. 2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are that while the petitioner was working as an officiating Postmaster at Pudukottai Head Quarters, he was placed under suspension by the Director, Postal Training Centre, Madurai, the 4th respondent herein, vide order dated 04.01.2013, under sub Rule(1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, on 21.02.2013, Superintendent of Post Office, Pudukottai Division, Pudukottai, the 5th respondent herein, issued a charge memo. Subsequently, suspension of writ pet...
G. Dhandapani Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakon ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in computing the gratuity, leave salary payable to the petitioner by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on his pay plus grade pay at the rate of 90% instead of 100% as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.55, Transport Department dated 04.06.2014 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently, direct the respondents to compute and pay to the petitioner the difference in gratuity, leave salary and commuted value of pension by taking into account the revised rate of dearness allowance, i.e. at the rate of 100% of pay + Grade Pay as fixed in G.O.No.55, Transport Department dated 04.06.2014 within a stipulated time.) Order: 1. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent corporation as Junior Tradesman with effect from 16.06.1980; that he was promoted as Tradesman and subsequently as Senior Trad...
A. Muthusamy Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.54405/2009/G2 dated 07.12.2009 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner concerned.) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 07.12.2009 passed in Na.Ka.No.54405/2009/G2 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the 1st respondent to restore the patta Nos.1457, 1458, 1459 and 1460 in the name of the petitioners. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.54405/09/G2 dated 07.12.2009 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as...
- ‹ Prev
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- Next ›
- Last »