Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
S. Selvin Vs. The State Represented by Revenue Divisional Officer, Nag ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.A2/4177/2016 dated 16.12.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to conduct Christmas Festival in the Evangelical Church of India, Panikulam Church, Kanyakumari District from 24.12.2016 to 01.01.2017 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.A2/4177/2016 dated 16.12.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to conduct Christmas Festival in the Evangelical Church of India, Panikulam Church, Kanyakumari District from 24.12.2016 to 01.01.2017 wi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, All Women Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahala Sessions Court, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District, in S.C.No.15 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on an young and mentally ill-developed girl aged 13 years. The Appellant, the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No. 7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, stood charged for offence under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 [in short "the POCSO Act"]. The trial court, by judgement dated 07.10.2015, convicted the appellant/accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The entire fine amount has been ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthi Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the Petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School on 8.3.2013 and disburse the service and monetary benefits to the Petitioner from the date of appointment, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking for a direction of the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the Petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant in the fourth respondent School on 8.3.2013 and disburse the service and monetary benefits to the Petitioner from the date of appointment, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has been appointed as Office Assistant with effect from 8.3.2013 in the 4th respondent school, which is a minority aided school. The fourt...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Janakiyammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Sub Court, Pollachi in I.A.No.1117 of 2013 in O.S.No.85 of 2011.) 1. The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in allowing the fourth defendant to file the counter claim under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the above revision. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit. 3. The suit is filed for partition. The fourth defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. According to the fourth defendant, one item of property in Schedule A and the property mentioned under Schedule C, in the partition deed dated 23.05.1990 were partitioned and given exclusively to the fourth defendant. Hence, he has made a counter claim with respect to that portion of the property. The said ap...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusamy Nadar Vs. Rajammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.09.1996, made in A.S.No.14 of 1995, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.01.1995 in O.S.No.133 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.) The defeated defendant is the appellant herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.133 of 1988, before the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, for the relief of declaration over Item No.I of the suit property i.e., suit Well and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from drawing water from the suit Well for irrigation of his land in Item No.II of the suit property. 4. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff has purchased the right in the suit Well under Ex.A1 Sale Deed, dated 03.03.1987 and she is irrigating her land by drawing water from t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Selvam Vs. The Secretary, Mother Theresa Women's University, Kodaik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.11.2016 and accordingly, declare Question No.16 - Paper - III as invalid and consequently grant 2 marks to the petitioner and declare the petitioner as passed in the State Level Eligibility Test for the year 2016 within a time frame.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a representation dated 14.11.2016 to the respondent and so far, no orders have been passed by the respondent on the representation. It is suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.11.2016. 3. In view of the limited prayer made, without going into the merits of the matter, the respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Ruby Textiles Processing Ltd by its Partner R. Udhaya Chandhirika ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.494 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur and strike off the same.) The revision petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.342 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from carrying out any business and transaction of related to S.P.Rotary Prints in the suit property. In the said suit, the defendants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C praying to reject the plaint and now orders are pending in the said application after enquiry. 2. In the meanwhile, the respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirppur for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants /revision petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till they are evicte...
Tag this Judgment!VR. Suyamprakasam Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Eeswar Th ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impunged order made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.5763/2015/A2 dated 19.05.2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent/the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Chennai suspending the petitioner from the Office of Hereditary Trusteeship and also appointing the 3rd respondent as Fit Person for Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Easwar Thiru Kovil, Iluppagudi, Karaikudi Taluk, in Sivagangai District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner is Hereditary Trustee of one Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Easwar Thiru Kovil, Iluppagudi, Karaikudi Taluk in Sivagangai District. The above temple is administered in terms of a scheme framed by this Court in APP.No.492, 743 and 491 of 1951, dated 05.05.1954 and amen...
Tag this Judgment!P.I. Thomas Vs. Office of the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforceme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenue Mr.C.C.Thampi, aged about 60 years and set him at liberty forthwith.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the detenu, C.C.Thampi, aged about 60 years and to set him at liberty. 2. Heard Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms.G.Hema, Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. It has been stated that the detenu is a business man, who had landed at Chennai, from Singapore. The officers of the Enforcement Directorate had initiated proceedings against the detenu, based on the summons issued, on 13.12.2016, under Sections 37[1] and [3] of the Foreign Exchange Management...
Tag this Judgment!S. Perambalam Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents Corporation to settle the pension amount for the month of December 2014 and January 2015 with 18% rate of interest for the belated payment of pension due to the Petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents Corporation to settle the pension amount for the month of December 2014 and January 2015 with 18% rate of interest for the belated payment of pension due to the Petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Petitioner joined the services of the first and second respondent/Corporation in the month of August 1980 and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2014 from the second respondent/Corporation. At the time of retirement, the Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »