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.
K. Vivekanandamoorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to send the pension proposals to the 5th respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010 to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to send the pension proposals to the 5th respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010 to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this petitioner was worked as an Assistant Directo...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Appellants and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A3 have preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 18.11.2016 in Spl.S.C.No.187 of 2015 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram. 3. It transpires that the 1st Petitioner/1st Appellant/A1 was found guilty by the trial Court in respect of an offence under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and further, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of said fine amount, he was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for nine months. In so far as the charge punishable ...
Y. Jeyachandra Sekhar Vs. R. Isaac Robi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to stay the all proceedings in I.A.No.26 of 2016 in O.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to stay the all proceedings in I.A.No.26 of 2016 in O.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District. 2. The petitioner is the third party to the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The first respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order setting aside the election held on 01.03.2015 to St. Paaul Church, Kodiyoor as per communication by 6th defendant in B/1455/ 2015, dated 29.10.2015 as illegal, void and non est and other consequential relief. He filed the suit in the representative capacity along with injunction application in I.A.No.26 of 2016. 4. According to the petitioner ...
Chinnappan Vs. Radhakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1994 in A.S.No.131 of 1933 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge of Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1992 in O.S.No.496 of 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif of Salem.) 1. The suit filed for partition and possession was allowed by the trial Court, but reversed by the first appellate Court. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost the case before first appellate Court is the appellant herein. 2. Brief facts as pleaded by the rival claimants are as follows: The suit schedule properties originally owned by one Sreeranga Gounder. He died intestate leaving behind his sons viz., Elumalai and Chinnappan (plaintiff). The said Elumalai died leaving behind his son and wife. They are the first and second defendants in the suit. The suit properties were jointly enjoyed by the family members i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants, even a...
Raja @ Subramani Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Ethappu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C against the judgment in S.C.No.257 of 2014 dated 15.12.2015 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.257 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Secs.341, 302 and 201 IPC. By Judgment dated 15.12.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused; for the offence punishable under Sec.341 IPC and and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week; under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment and also convicted him for the offence punishable under Sec.201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction, the ...
G. Dhivya Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Mali ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 19.10.2016 and to take necessary steps to issue a certificate with regard to genuineness of the petitioner birth certificate registration No.332 registered on 27.07.1989.) 1. The petitioner is seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation, dated 19.10.2016, and issue a certificate with regard to the genuineness of her birth certificate with registration No.332 registered on 27.07.1989. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. It is seen that the petitioner was given a birth certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Tirunagar Town Panchayat, Madurai, on 21.08.1989 certifying the date of birth as...
M/s. Singapore Realty Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director Vs. The S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,09,42,000/- in accordance with the sale deed dated 06.05.2004 and 16.12.2004 as directed by the order dated 14.03.2012 in WP No. 6243 of 2006 and WP No. 6244 of 2016.) 1. The petitioner seeks for issuing a Mandamus to direct the respondent to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,09,42,000/- as per the sale deeds dated 06.05.2004 and 16.12.2004 and as directed by this Court in the order dated 14.03.2012 in WP No. 6243 of 2006 and WP No. 6244 of 2016. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner company is a Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it was set up pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.09.2003 entered into between Lee Kim Tah Holdings Limited and the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner compan...
A. Valliammai Vs. K.P. Murali and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2006 made in O.S.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Tiruchirapalli.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Tiruchirappalli, dated 28.12.2006 in O.S.No.21 of 2014. 2. The second defendant has come forward with this appeal against the judgment and decree in suit for Specific Performance. The plaint averments are as follows: 2.1. One Ayyamperumal Konar had two wives by name Valliammai and Rajammal. Rajammal is now dead. Ayyamperumal Konar had no issues and he died on 03.11.1969 intestate. Valliammai, the second wife had been in possession of the suit property. She entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant on 26.05.1988, agreeing to sell 11 acres of land at the rate of Rs.2,95,000/- per acre, by rec...
Nagarathinam Vs. S. Jaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed Under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2007 made in O.S.No.643 of 2004 on the file of Additional District cum Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore.) 1. The defendant who suffered a decree for Specific Performance in O.S.No.643 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, Coimbatore is the appellant. The suit was filed originally as O.S.No.946 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court Coimbatore was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Court and re-numbered as above. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 16.07.1997. Under the said agreement, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.5,40,000/- (Five Lakhs forty thousand only) and an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) was paid on the date of the execution of the agreement. A period of three months was fixed for perfo...
G. Lakshmi and Another Vs. U. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
(Prayer: Original Petition No.485 of 2003 was filed under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of letters of Administration with Will annexed. As per order of this Court dated 1.10.2013 in O.P.No.485 of 2013, the Original Petition No.485 of 2013 was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.97 of 2013.) 1. The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendant herein. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case may be stated as follows: The plaintiffs are the daughters of Ganesan, who is the brother of one Pattammal, who is the testatrix. The said Pattammal left a Will dated 6.3.2005 bequeathing the suit property in favour of her brother Ganesan. The suit property was purchased in the name of said Pattammal, who is the binami of her brother Ganesan. The beneficiary Ganesan was in fact paying taxes to the suit property from the date of its purchase, in the na...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »