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.
D. Sathiyavani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai and Othe ...
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 directing the respondents herein to release the vehicle bearing registration No.TN. 58 Q 0135 seized by the respondents herein on 15.11.2016 to the petitioner.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
K. Maheswari Vs. Ashwini Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for the relief as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- a. directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.55,76,774/- towards arrears of rent and future rent at Rs.93,898 per month from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation in full. b. directing the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. 2. The case of the Plaintiff, in a nutshell, as set out in the plaint, is that the Plaintiff is the owner of the premises at No.16 and 16/1, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-3 and the Defendant is the tenant in a portion of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.47,000/-. Dispute had arisen between them. In RCOP.No.640 of 2005 filed by the Plaintiff, fair rent was fixed at Rs.93,898/- per month on 19.4.2006, wh...
Subramanian and Another Vs. K. Mohan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.17 of 2004 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil, dated 14.02.2007 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.350 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, dated 07.10.2003.) 1. The plaintiffs 2 and 4 in the suit in O.S.No.350 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2. However, during pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died. The second plaintiff is also the son of first plaintiff. However, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were also impleaded as the other legal representatives of the first plaintiff. The suit is for declaration that the suit third schedule belong to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 exclusively and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching into the suit third s...
S. Krishnaveni Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Othe ...
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 directing the 3rd respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 16.8.2016 relating with the properties S.No.1470 1471 and 1472/1 in Seevalaperi Village in Palayamkottai Taluk in Tirunelveli District in the light of the circular dt.15.09.2010 issued by the 1st respondent.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
A. Jana Vs. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corpo ...
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 Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to its order bearing letter No.1214/H3/2015 dated 15.11.2016 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to remove the seal put up at the Toilet Blocks at the 3rd Respondent premises and permit the petitioner to continue the lease as per the agreement, dated 21.10.2015.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 15.11.2016 terminating the contract with the Petitioner in respect of maintaining the toilet at the third respondent/premises. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. Though the learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained on the reason t...
D. Vijayakumar Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 308 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 24.09.2012 in M.P.No.90 of 2012 in C.C.No.5024 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.) 1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 308 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 24.09.2012 in M.P.No.90 of 2012 in C.C.No.5024 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The case of the revision petitioner as averred in the revision petition is that he has been arrayed as A4 in Cr.No.RC-4(E/2010-CBI/EOW/Chennai) registered by the respondent for the alleged offences u/s. 120 B r/w. 420 r/w. 468 and 468 and 471 IPC. The complaint was lodged by one D.N .Routry Deputy General Manager, (UCO Bank), Zonal Office, Thambuchetty street, Chennai. After receiving the complaint, the respondent police had investigated the matter and during the investigation examined about 20 witnesses, collected abo...
Meenakshi and Others Vs. Sri Kanniga Parameswari Mutt @ Choultry Namak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 made in A.S.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000 made in O.S.No.393 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 made in A.S.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000 made in O.S.No.393 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the deceased first defendant was a tenant in respect of the portion of the suit property (i.e.) one cent under the plaintiff and running a tea stall therein and he has also not paid the rent at the rate ...
N. Pownraj Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Departmen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2012 made in Na.Ka.No:57/A2/2008 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Head Master regularly from October 2012 onwards.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2012 made in Na.Ka.No:57/A2/2008 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Head Master regularly from October 2012 onwards. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has got M.Sc., M.Phil, and M.Ed., decrees. Thereafter he was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant (Maths) Teacher by the Managem...
Dr. Denzil Kudalane Vs. The Public Information Officer, Corporation of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to furnish the information to the Petitioner as he requested in his application dated 4.11.2016 within the stipulated period under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to furnish information to the Petitioner as requested by him in his application dated 4.11.2016 filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the materials placed before this Court, I am of the view that the present Writ Petition is highly pre-matured, more particularly, when the petitioner has got ample ...
M/s. Mugilan Enterprises represented by its Partner J. Rajendra Prasad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- a) declaring that the order dated 14.08.2008 of termination of the contract dated 09.01.2007 made by the 3rd Defendant is illegal. b) directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.52,46,975/- with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.51,19,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realization. c) directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit. 2. The plaint averments are that the Plaintiff is a Partnership Firm and is a registered Class I Civil Engineering Contractor and doing road works with the Tamil Nadu Highways Department, Corporation of Chennai etc. and other such public authorities. The Defendant had called for tenders for widening the single lane to double lane and strengthening of Chennai-Vandalur- Kelambakkam Roa...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »