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.
P. Chinnaraj Vs. K. Govindasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Decree and Order made in I.A.No.355 of 2013 in O.S.No.189 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengam, Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam.) 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.355 of 2013 in O.S.No.189 of 2012 dated 02.08.2013, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam. 2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit against the defendants suit for easement right in respect of B schedule property and for permanent injunction. 3. Further case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when the suit was filed, there was a cart track in the B schedule property is in existence, but the said cart track was destroyed by the respondent/defendant before two days of visiting by the Advocate Commissioner, since the petitioner has filed the application f...
I. John Vs. T. Rajasekaran, Regiional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
1. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Contemnor submitted that the order passed in the above Writ Petition has been complied with by forwarding a proposal to the Accountant General, Accountant General Office, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. He has also produced a copy of the same before this Court. 2. Recording the above said submission, the Contempt Petition is closed....
J. Karthikeyan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary, Heal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 5th Respondent, his Officers and his Subordinates or any one acting through them or under them from in any manner interfering with (the petitioner) his legal right to carry on his business continuously and on his representation dated 30.11.2016.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the 5th respondent from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's legal right to carry on his business. 2. The petitioner is running a business in the name of Sri Vetrivelmurugan, selling small salt packets. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent has unlawfully interfered with his business and seized the some salt packets also by sealing the premises without following rules on 29.11.2016. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent, wherein, it is contended that the petitioner manufactured salt packets by using forged licen...
Allavuthen Vs. The Additional Directors, Town Panchayat of Ramanathapu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.299 of 2008, dated 27.02.2012 regarding Shop.No.21 and 22 and the impugned notification issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.299 of 2008, dated 18.2.2013 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to confirm the auction in favour of the Petitioner regarding the Shop No.21 and 22.) 1. When the matter was called on 5.12.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption 'for dismissal''. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court, as against the Judgment dated 04.11.2016 in S.C.No.279 of 2015 passed by the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 3. The Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, while passing the impugne Judgment in S.C.No.279 of 2015, at paragraph 18, had, among other things, observed as under: 18. .... Hence, the accused said to have seen the wife with another man in a compromising position, it is natural that the man could get a wild angry. In this case also, the P.W.1 has given a complaint stating that the accused got angry and scolded her wife and also slapped her cheek. In that impact she felled down by hitting on the pillar. 4. Also, in the aforesaid Judgment, at paragrap...
New India Assurance Company Limited, Namakkal Vs. Sakthivel and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichirappalli, dated 10.06.2004.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award of Rs.7,95,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Ninety Five Thousand only) for the injury sustained by the first respondent/claimant in the accident occurred on 04.08.2000. 2. The first respondent/claimant sustained various injuries including fracture of both the hip bones and because of that, the movement of the hip has been restricted by 50 degree of right side and 60 degree of left side. He sustained injuries in the abdomen resulting in injury to the urinary track, for which, the first respondent/claimant underwent a surgery. Thirdly, to an extent 6 cm X 2 cm, his bones got crushed and as a result of the injury to th...
D. Balan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 in proceedings Pa. Mu. No.32660/P1/2012 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal void abinitio without jurisdiction ultravires and direct the 3rd respondent to register the release deed No.133/2008 in Book in 1 by collecting the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 72 000/-) 1. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows:- The properties comprised in T.S.Nos.73/4 and 73/1A, Natham Road, Dindigul were originally vested with M/s.I.Bahrudeen, I.Rafeeq and I.Abdul Salam. The aforesaid three persons constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of Shan Theatre through a partnership deed dated 07.03.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner and eight others were inducted into the said partnership firm as partners through a partnership deed dated 27.03.2003. As per the re...
R.B. Chandran and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner, H.R and C.E Admin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the order dated 03.05.2011 made ready on 19.07.2011 by the Commissioner HR and CE Administration Department, Chennai, in R.C.No.46013 of 2010 D2.) 1. The instant Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2011 made ready on 19.07.2011 by the Commissioner HR and CE Administration Department, Chennai, in R.C.No.46013 of 2010 D2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lessee of the schedule mentioned land and in occupation since 1932, leased out by his father. Thereafter the vacant land was developed and a building was constructed to an extent of 2068 sq.ft. Since, the date of construction, all the statutory liabilities are being paid regularly. During 1982, the leasehold right expired and a communication was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 with a request to extend the lease period with a minimum increa...
V. Ramar and Others Vs. D. Sabitha, State of Tamil Nadu, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Article 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court to punish the respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16771 of 2013, dated 09.04.2014 for committing the act of Contempt of Court.) 1. It is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as against the order passed in the above Writ Petition, the respondents filed W.A.No.676 of 2015 and the same was admitted and pending. 2. Recording the above said submission, this Contempt Petition is closed. However, liberty is given to the Petitioner to revive the Contempt Petition, if situation so warrants, in future....
Selvaraj and Another Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.23977 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pursuant to the impugned order of the 4th respondent 13.10.2016 in his proceedings bearing A.Thi.Mu.No.192/2016 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to register sale deed executed for the petitioner dated 07.09.2016 in respect of land in S.No.517/3 Panchalagkurichi Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District. in W.P(MD)No.23978 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pursuant to the impugned order of the 4th respondent 13.10.2016 in his proceedings bearing A.Thi.Mu.No.191/2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to register sale deed executed for the petitioner dated 07.09.2016 in respect of land in S.No.517/2 Panchalagkurichi Vil...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »