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.
O.E. Siva Mahendran Vs. Inba Nila and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against fair and decreetal order dated 26.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.278 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur.) 1. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.278 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2006 dated 26.08.2011, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, by allowing the condone delay petition. 2. The case of the petitioners/proposed parties, who have filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with the petition to condone the delay of 926 days in filing the petition, to set aside the exparte decree passed against the second defendant in the suit on 22.12.2006. 3. The petitioners/proposed parties further state that the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance against the defendants 2 and 3 on the basis of fraudulent sale agreement and have obtained an exparte decree on 22.12.2006. One Amu...
Sudanthiradevi and Others Vs. Jahir Hussain and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 13.07.2012 rendered in A.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Camp at Melur, reversing the decree and the judgment dated 01.12.2005 rendered in O.S.No.533 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif of Melur, by allowing this Second Appeal.) 1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.533 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. 2. The suit in O.S.No.533 of 2004 was filed for bare injunction restraining the the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. 3. The brief facts as set out in the plaint in O.S.No.533 of 2004 are as follows: 3.1. The first defendant is the owner of the suit property and he entered in to a sale agreement on 03.11.1997 in respect of the suit property. As per the abo...
J. Gopal Vs. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Represented by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the issue of the impugned order No.HR/Contract/15, dated 29.04.2015 and HR/Contract/16, dated 11.05.2016 of the second and third respondents respectively and quash the same in so far as the appointment is termed as contract is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in terms of the original order of appointment Reference No.HR/ESTT/15, dated 17.03.2015 with all attendant benefits.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the issue of the impugned order No.HR/Contract/15, dated 29.04.2015 and HR/Contract/16, dated 11.05.2016 of the second and third respondents respectively and quash the same in so far as the appointment termed as contract is concer...
RM. Ponnalagu Pattar Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(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 first respondent in Na.Ka.No.5931/2013/C1/dated 29.11.2016 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to permit the Petitioner to perform poojas and Punaskaras in the light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR and CE in O.A.No.19 of 1964, dated 24.6.1966 in Arulmighu Jeyangonda Nayagi @ Poonkundra Nayagi Amman Temple, Magipalanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 29.11.2016, wherein and whereby, the Petitioner and two others were prevented from doing pooja at Arulmighu Jeyangonda Nayagi @ Poonkundra Nayagi Amman Temple, Magipalanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. 3. By c...
P. Moorthy Vs. The State, represented by its Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 herein from issuing No Objection Certificate to the sixth and seventh respondents herein for forming petrol bunk in S.Nos.535/14 and 535/14B of Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District in the light of the proceedings passed by the fourth respondent vide Na.Ka.No.535/2012/A4, dated 24.4.2012 by considering the Petitioner's representation made before them dated 7.12.2016.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the respondents 2 to 5 from issuing No Objection Certificate to the respondents 6 and 7 for forming Petrol Bunk in S.Nos.535/14 and 535/14B of Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District in the light of the proceedings passed by the fourth respondent vide Na.Ka.No.535/2012/A4, dated 24.4.2012 by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 7.12.2016. 2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government...
Radhu @ Rghunathan and Another Vs. Vijaya Kumar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: in CMA.No.2613 of 2011: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 4164 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai. Prayer: in CMA.No.2666 of 2011:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 4158 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment: 1. These civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.4158 and 4164 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. The appellants, namely D.K.Balakrishnan and Raghu @ Raghunathan, as the claimants, have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.4158 and 4164 of 2004, respectively, bef...
Raja Vs. Priyadharshini and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2011 in HMOP No.22 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli.) 1. The husband, in the matrimonial proceedings has filed the above revision, challenging the award of maintenance passed by the Court below dated 27.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2011 filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in HMOP No.22 of 2011. 2. The brief facts of the case would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner/husband has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)((ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Pending the same, I.A.No.44 of 2011 was filed by the first respondent/wife claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the child. The first respondent had alleged that the revision petitioner/husband is having illegal relationship with another woman whereby neglecting her and the child. Accor...
R. Senbagadevi and Others Vs. C. Sundaramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 in A.S.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008 in O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankagiri.) 1. The defendants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 made in A.S.No.58/2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, Fast Track Court, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008 made in O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankagiri in this second appeal. 2. The suit has been laid for recovery of money 3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: The first defendant is the wife and the defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Ramachandran. Ramachandran died on 07.08.2005. For business activities and family expenses, on 30.03.2004 the de...
K. Jayaraman Vs. The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Trichy and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to provide the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself through an advocate of his choice in the department proceedings before the 2nd respondent which is conducted in pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ref.No.03774/H4/2014 dated 16.11.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to provide the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself through an advocate of his choice in the department proceedings before the 2nd respondent, which is conducted, pursuant of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ref.No.03774/H4/2014 dated 16.11.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under: i) the petitioner joined as a Lecturer in Departm...
Subburaj Vs. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to sent the loan amount of Rs. 10,98,916/- to the third respondent under the self Employment Programme for Youth (SEPY) vide the Proceedings No.A2/401/2016-17/SEPY/05, dated 22.09.2016 within the stipulated as fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent for disbursement of loan amount of Rs. 10,98,916/- under the Self Employment Programme for Youth. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he approached the first respondent for extending the vehicle loan under the Self Employment Programme for Youth Scheme by way of an application, dated 19.03.2015, and that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the second respondent bank towards the fixed deposit. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was selected by the Selection Committee to get subsidy of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the tou...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »