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.
Arumugam Vs. R. Murali and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2001 and made in M.C.O.P.No.2611 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai.) Judgment: 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.2611 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai. 2. The appellant, as a claimant, has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2611 of 1998 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court or Small Causes at Chennai, for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and after hearing the arguments of both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.51,500/- towards compensation to the appellant. Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of the ...
S. Ravindran and Others The State of Tamil Nadu,represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
Common Judgment P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed one by private respondents and the other by the State, seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.30956 of 2013 dated 21.01.2016. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are as follows: (i)The Tamil Nadu Special Police consists two categories viz., General Line and Special Line. The General Line forms the major portion of the force. The other group viz., (i) Motor Transport (ii) Signal Group (iii) Armoury/Re Broning (iv) Band and (v) Miscellaneous posts such as Carpenters, Cobblers, Tailors etc. constitute special group. In the Special Line group, except the Armoury, all other categories have the posts from Police Constable to Inspector. In Armoury, there is no post of Inspector and the highest rank stops with the Sub Inspector. In the general line, Police Constable gets elevated up to the rank of Inspector through the ranks viz., Naik, Hav...
D. Samuel Vs. The Information Commissioner and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(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 relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Gen.No.28211/B/16 and 28212/B/16, dated 27.09.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to impose penalty to the third respondent by invoking sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.) 1. Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent on 27.09.2016, wherein and whereby, the Second Appeal preferred before the first respondent was returned, as the same was n...
Santhanasamy Vs. The Head Surveyor, Lands Survey, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(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 the land in Old S.No.176/1R, New S.No.Ward T. Block-44, No.60 in Sengol Udayar Street, Alathoor Village, Ponmalaipatti, Trichy District measuring 21.5 cents by considering the application bearing Sl.No.3730, dated 14.11.2016 and the Petitioner's representation dated 2.12.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to survey his land in Old S.No.176/1R, New S.No.Ward T. Block-44, No.60 in Sengol Udayar Street, Alathoor Village, Ponmalaipatti, Trichy District, measuring 21.5 cents by considering the application bearing Sl.No.3730, dated 14.11.2016 and the Petitioner's representation dated 2.12.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 3. By consent of both...
G. Thavasi Appan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the encashment of unearned leave on private affairs for period of 90 days to the petitioner.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the encashment of unearned leave on private affairs for a period of 90 days to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner after having a long service at the respondent Corporation retired on 31.01.2008. Since he is entitled to get encashmnt of unearned leave on private affairs to the extent of 90 days, he had sent a representation to the respondent on 14.02.2013. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner has come up with present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government by letter No.37568/BPE/2006, dated 28.01.2008, had considered the issue of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs a...
A. Shanmugham Vs. M. Duraipandian and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable order, dated 25.04.2016, made in I.A.No.197 of 2016 in I.A.No.189 of 2015 in O.S.No.953 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order, dated 25.04.2016, made in I.A.No.197 of 2016 in I.A.No.189 of 2015 in O.S.No.953 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. Facts of the case: (i) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.953 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction. Pending suit, he filed I.A.No.189 of 2015 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The said Application was ordered and Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the suit property and filed his report along with sketch. Th...
Piranoor Shopping Complex Welfare Association Rep. by its President, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of impugned notification bearing Na.Ka.No. A1/01/2016, dated 03.11.2016 published in Thina Thanthi, dated 05.11.2016, issued by the respondents 1 and 2 and quash the same in so far as it relates to shop Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19, 20, 22, 23,24, 26 and 26/1 and renew the lease of the said shops to the existing lease holders in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007.) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the auction notification issued by the respondent panchayat for letting the shops erected in the land belonging to the panchayat. 2. The petitioner, an Association is claiming that it members are already in possession and enjoyment of certain shops, which are sought to be auctioned by the impugned notification. 3. The grievance of the pe...
S. Sivalingam Vs. The Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Information Commis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to furnish information sought for by the petitioner in his petition dated 13.03.2014 and further directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pay a penalty of Rs. 250(Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day from 13.03.2014 till the date of furnishing information in consonance with section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005.) 1. Though this writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner under RTI Act based on his application dated 13.03.2014, it appears that the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent came to be returned on 28.04.2015 for effecting certain compliances. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to re-present the appeal, after effecting the compliance. 3....
V. Alamelu Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Co-op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fifth respondent to grant agricultural loan to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2016.) 1. Mrs.V.Alamelu, W/o late Veemagounder, being an agriculturist doing agricultural works along with her family members, is also owning property comprised in Survey No.56(2A1), 2B, 2I measuring about 0.36.50 Ares situated at Veeranam Village, Salem District, for which patta also has been issued bearing No.783 in favour of the petitioner and her sons Mr.Subramani, Mr.Sekar, Mr.Mani and Mr.Raja. Besides, the Village Administrative Officer, Korathupatti, Salem also had issued adangal with regard to the land in question on 12.10.2016. In addition thereto, the petitioner has been issued with a certificate of having agricultural property at Veeranam village, Salem District. Since the petitioner is a member bearing No.3641 from 2004, the Primary...
G. Ignatius Vs. The Tahsildar, Karur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(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 relating to the proceedings of the second respondent made in Survey Notice Petition No.FLA, dated 23.09.2016 and to quash the same and consequently to forbear the respondent not to make any sub-divisions in respect of S.No.326/3A1 and 326/3A3, Rajendram North Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District in the revenue records based on the survey conducted on 29.09.2016.) 1. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings, dated 23.09.2016 issued by the second respondent, which is nothing but a notice calling upon the Petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 29.09.2016 in respect of survey proceedings. 4. I do n...