Chennai 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.
Thenmozhi Vs. K. Ramachandran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.07.2016 rendered in W.P.No.26049 of 2014.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. Heard Mr.M.Blasubramanian, learned counsel for the appellant. 2.The learned single Judge, who entertained the Writ Petition, instituted by a resident of the locality, taking a serious objection to the location of a retail liquor vend, sought for the same to be re-shifted to a different location. 3. During the course of order, the learned single Judge has adversely commented upon the earlier report dated 28.03.2009, made available by the second respondent, District Manager of IMFS Depot, TASMAC Limited, Chennai. Perhaps, the passage of time of nearly seven years from the date of the said report, has generated the hygienic conditions around the liquor might have suffered a drastic decline and therefore the learned single Judge, had commented adversely against the said report taking a contemporary fact situation prevailing, as m...
M. Geetha Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.10.2016 and confirm the award of LPG Distributorship for Kaniyalampatti (Karur).) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider her representation, dated 23.10.2016, wherein and whereby she seeks confirmation of the award of LPG Distributorship for Kaniyalampatti (Karur). 2. According to the petitioner, such Distributorship has to be confirmed in her favour. 3. Needless to say that it is for the respondents to take a decision and issue appropriate orders based on the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.10.2016 on its own merits and in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner except by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.10.2016, and pass orders on the same ...
Swaminathan Vs. Savithri and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Fair and Final Order dated 10.12.2011 made in I.A.Nos.1932 and 1933 of 2011 in XCA.No.10131 of 2010 in O.S.No.1515 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore and pray to set aside the same.) Common Order: 1. The second defendant in O.S.No.1515 of 2004 is the Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.1932 and 1933 of 2011 in XCA.No.10131 of 2010 in O.S.No.1515 of 2004 dated 10.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner/2nd defendant is that the first respondent Savithri, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1515 of 2004 has filed the Civil Suit for partition against this petitioner/2nd defendant and the other defendants/the respondents 2 and 3 herein. 3. Further case of the petitioner/2nd defendant is that the preliminary decree was passed i...
Easwari and Another Vs. Rajamaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2010 made in A.S.No.66 of 2009 and 44 of 2010 respectively on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 made in O.S.No.271 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.) Common Judgment: 1. The defendants in O.S.No.271 of 2006 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.271 of 2006 have impugned in these second appeals the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2010 made in A.S.No.66 of 2009 and 44 of 2010 respectively on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 made in O.S.No.271 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee. 2. Both second appeals have been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in these second appeals. Whether the courts below have erred in law in...
K.P. Gopalan Vs. N. Nalina and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 15.07.2013, made in I.A.No.112 of 2012 in A.S.No.120 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 15.07.2013, made in I.A.No.112 of 2012 in A.S.No.120 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. 2. Facts of the case:- (i) The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.302 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul and appellant in A.S.No.120 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul. (ii) The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 10.06.2000. (iii) The respondent filed written statement and resisted the same. (iv) The Trial Court framed necessary issues and after trial, dismissed the suit. (v) Against the said judgment and decree, dated 3...
M/s. Renaatus Projects Private Limited, Represented by its Executive D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: WP No. 32287 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order/E-mail dated 30.08.2016 at 19.28 hours pertaining to Tender id : 2016_TNPHC_62689_1 Tender Reference no : SE/CC/DB/08/2016-17 (838) issued by the respondent and the consequent order of the respondent vide Lr. No.SE/CC/DB/838/2015 dated 02.09.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the bid of the petitioner by opening their financial bid and evaluate and finalise the same based on the qualifications and experience. WP No. 32288 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order/E-mail dated 30.08.2016 at 19.23 hours pertaining to Tender id : 2016_TNPHC_62692_1 Tender Reference no : SE/CC/DB/08/2016-17 (851) issued by the respondent and the consequent...
The United India Insurance Company, represented by its Branch Manager, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer in C.M.A(MD)No.959 of 2014:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram. in Cross OBJ(MD)NO.24 of 2014:- Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram insofar as it is against the corss objectors is concerned.) Common Judgment: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award of Rs.8,82,000/- and also fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. 2. The Cross-Objection has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Ashok Kumar, who died in the accident occurred on 30.03.2008. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Ashok Kum...
Thiashola Plantations Private Ltd. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P. No.27058 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent comprised in the Notification issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.370/2011 dated 03.08.2011 as published in the Nilgiris District Gazette Extra Ordinary Edition dated 11.08.2011 in respect of the determination made by the second respondent relating to lands comprised in Survey Nos.16, 22, 24, 36/7, 81/1, 81/2, 81/5, 81/6, 413, 414, 415/2, 415/3, 415/5, 427, 428/1 in Cherumulli Village, Gudalur Taluk in Nilgiris District admeasuring 28.58 acres, 6.23 acres, 7.28 acres, 8.64 acres, 16.25 acres, 39.02 arces, 18.82 acres, 3.16 acres, 2.50 acres, 11.08 acres, 0.84 acres, 15.86 acres, 2.40 acres, 5.92 acres and 17.26 acres, aggregating to 183.84 acres and Survey admeasuring 6.90 acres and 20.00 acres aggregating to 26.90 acres and totalling to 210.74 acres and to quash the same as being arbitrary an...
Lakshmi Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 14.07.2011 made in R.E.A.No.70 of 2011 in O.S.No.2423 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.) 1. The judgment debtor/defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in REP.No.70 of 2011 in O.S.No.2423 of 2004, dated 14.07.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The case of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that the respondent/decree holder has filed O.S.No.2423 of 2004 for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was decreed exparte and the suit was decreed on 04.04.2007 in favour of the respondent. 3. After the decree, the respondent/decree holder has filed Execution Petition in REP.No.70 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 32(1), 32(3), 32(5) r/w Section 151 of CPC, on...
Rajammal (deceased) and Others Vs. The District Collector, Salem and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2010 made in A.S.No.15 of 2009 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Addl. District Munsif Court, Salem, dated 22.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.1300 of 2005.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 made in A.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.1300 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration and mandatory injunction. 3. The relief of declaration is sought for by the plaintiffs the right of way to take their men, cattle, cart and other vehicles from the suit C schedule properties to the public road through the suit D schedule properties and the relief of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »