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.
Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the second defendant against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2010 made in A.S.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Erode, Confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2007 made in O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode in so far as it went against him. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs claiming partition of 2/3 shares of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit properties and also claiming maintenance for the first plaintiff from the first defendant and also, claiming the relief of charge over the share of the first defendant's properties for regular payment of the maintenance to the first plaintiff and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties, till the passing of the final decree. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for considera...
The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Janina Beevi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in L.A.C.M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 modifying the Award No.22/95-96 dated 22.03.1996.) 1. The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in L.A.C.M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 modifying the Award No.22/95-96 dated 22.03.1996, in and by which, the lower appellate Court had enhanced the compensation to the respondents herein. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and by consent, they are disposed of, by a common order. 3. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions would aver among other things in the affidavits filed in support of the Civil Revision Petitions that the lands measuring about 1.77.3 Hectares in S.Nos.116/1, 116/2A, 116/2B...
P. Aruldoss and Others Vs. The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk Office and ...
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 respondents to survey and measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.81/6 A2 situated at Meenakshi Sundar Nagar, Venthoni Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2016.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to survey and measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.81/6 A2 situated at Meenakshi Sundar Nagar, Venthoni Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2016. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the above said representation submitted by the Petitioner to survey...
A. Jamal Sherif and Another Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of For ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P.No.8545 of 2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the impugned auction notification in Na.Ka.No.1507/2015/L, dated 29.01.2016, and quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct fresh auction for the 13 Babul Plantations as specified in the said notification. Prayer in W.P.No.8545 of 2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to allot the tender in Thiruvallur District, Ponneri Division, Kakavakkam Village Plantation auction conducted by the respondents 3 and 4 dated 04.03.2016 to the petitioner's favour pursuant to the representation dated 28.07.2016.) Common Order: 1. W.P.No.8545 of 2016 was filed by one Mr.A.Jamal Sherif/Contractor challenging the Notification dated 29.01.2016 issued by the third respondent / Divisi...
Somasundaram Vs. Kathalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Nagapattinam, dated 27.08.2010 made in A.S.No.21/2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam dated 18.02.2010 made in O.S.No.193 of 2005.) 1. The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2010 made in A.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 made in O.S.No.193 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 3. Claiming to be in the possession of the suit property on the basis of the transfer of Paguthi rights from the Sub lessee Padmavathi on 20.11.1997, the plaintiff alleging that the defendant, without any authority or right, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there...
E. Saraswathi Vs. M. Rajendran, The Assistant Divisional Manager, PLI ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to issue notice to the Contemnor/respondent and punish him under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.11243 of 2014 on 12.09.2014.) 1. It is represented by both sides that the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11243 of 2014 on 12.09.2014, has been complied with. 2. Recording the above-said statement, the contempt petition is closed. No costs....
A. Saravanan Vs. The Executive Officer, Mela Chokkanathauram Town Panc ...
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 herein to give drinking water connection to the Petitioner's house at Door No.1-1-178/4, Vinobaji Colony, Melachokkanathauram, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, since the respondent has given water connection to the Petitioner's house, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
The Superintending Engineer TWAD Board, T.K. Circle Santhinagar, Palay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment dated 29.04.2013 rendered in W.P.No.23720 of 2002.) Common Judgment S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. These Writ Appeals arose out of a common order made in W.P.Nos. 23720 to 23724 and 23807 to 23812 of 2002, dated 29.04.2013. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondents/workmen were appointed as NMRs on daily wage basis in R.W. Division of TWAD Board at Nagercoil, through the District Employment Exchange. Subsequently, they were removed from service, on account of the closure of R.W.Division at Nagercoil, without notice. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents/workmen raised Industrial Disputes under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Madurai and later the same was transferred to Tirunelveli and renumbered. 3. The appellants in the Writ Appeals filed Writ Petitions challenging the award of the Labour Court, mainly on the ground that the respondents/workmen, failed to p...
V. Krishnan Vs. V. Rajagopal
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 19.04.2010 made in Appeal Suit No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2009 made in O.S.No.119 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Krishnagiri.) 1. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2010 made in A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009 made in O.S.No.119 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The suit has been laid for declaration, possession and mesne profits. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows. The plaintiff, the defendant, Peddhodi @ Venkataraman,and Venugopal are brothers. As per the sale deed dated 26.08.1967, the defendant, Peddhodi @ Venkataraman and Venugopa...
Balasubramaniyan Vs. Jeyadevi, Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor for the disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9676 of 2013 dated 15.06.2015.) K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by issuing the proceedings, dated 14.12.2016, by the Assistant Commissioner of H.R and C.E., Tiruchirappalli. He has also produced a copy of the said order. 2. Recording the abovesaid submissions, this Contempt Petition is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the said communication in any manner, it is open to him to resort to the remedy available under law. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »