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.
S. Balasubramanian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his legal Cell/RTI-828/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to sanction the minimum pension to the petitioner and to revise the pensionary benefits.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings in legal Cell/RTI-828/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction the minimum pension to the petitioner. 2. The very short facts, which are essential to decide the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was working as a Village Karnam during the year 1980. A policy decision was taken by the Government on 14.11.1980, by which, the post of Village Karnam/Village Munsif was abolished. As against the said...
N. Rasu @ Velayutham (A3) and Others Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer:Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Mahalir Court (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Erode in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2015 dated 10.05.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.400 of 2016 is the first accused, the appellant in Crl.A.No.630 of 2016 is the second accused, the appellants in Crl.A.No.372 of 2016 are the accused 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.376 of 2016 is the 9th accused in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahila Fast Track Court), Erode. The 5th accused was one Mr.D.Yuvaraj. The trial Court framed charges against all the nine accused as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1, A2 and A9370 of IPC2A2 and A9332 of IPC3A1366 of IPC4A3 to A6366 r/w 34 of IPC5A1506(ii) of IPC6A1 to A9368 r/w 366 of IPC7A19 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 20068A2 to A910 of...
Ambrose and Another Vs. Inspector of Police, Paramakudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.264 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners.) 1. The criminal original petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.264 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2009 at 9 a.m. the petitioners along with their henchmen trespassed into the house bearing Door No.12/338, V16 and VI7 belongs to the complainant and abused the inmates and threatened the complainant and another person who was cited as witness No.2 and also caused damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner namely Ambrose is the owner of the property at Door No.12/338 V16 and V17. While so, witness No. 1/Ramakrishnan, disturbed the possession of the said property. Hence, a complain...
N.S. Gunasekaran Vs. The Principal District Judge, Namakkal District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Roc.No.8400/A/2011, dated 31.05.2012, and the subsequent posting order in Roc.No.8400/A/2011, dated 31.05.2012, and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to restore the petitioner to the post of Assistant with all attendant, consequential and service benefits, including arrears of salary.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is instituted, challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed on 31.05.2012, by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant to that of Junior Bailiff permanently with effect from 01.06.1992. 2. Bereft of all other unnecessary details, it would be enough for us to notice that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Office Assistant to that of Junior Bailiff on 13.03.20...
S. Jeyakumar and Others Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin Di ...
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 Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of 1st Respondent herein dated 26.12.2015 made in Na.Ka.D3/19407/2014 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 26.12.2015 arising out patta proceedings. 2. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the first respondent has directed the removal of names found in subject matter patta and include the name of the fourth respondent herein. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when a civil suit is pending between the parties, which culminated into a second appeal before this Court in S.A(MD)No.202 of 2015, the first respondent ought not to have passed the present impugned order having noted the pendency of the above second appeal in the impugned order itself. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitte...
K. Jayaraman Vs. The Registrar, Bharathidasan University and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(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...
Subramanian Vs. The District Collector, Trichy 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 Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary action and to issue patta to the Petitioner for 2 acres and 55 cents for the lands in S.No.174, situated at Valasiramani Village, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District by considering the report of the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.988 of 2013, dated 28.3.2013 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to issue patta in his name in respect of the subject-matter land. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. It appears that the Petitioner has already made a representation 8.2.2016 to the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the fourth respondent for ...
K. Padma Vs. V. Ravi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.233 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Bomb Blast Cases and Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 29.12.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The respondents 1 to 7 herein are the accused in S.C.No.233 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases) Coimbatore. These accused stood charged as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under1A1 to A7120(B) r/w 302 of IPC2A1 to A7147, 148 and 341 of IPC3A1 and A2294B and 302 of IPC4A3 and A7302 r/w 34 of IPC By judgment dated 29.12.2015, the trial Court acquitted all the accused. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and the wife of the deceased. Aggrieved over the said judgment, she has come up with this appeal against acquittal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1.The dece...
M. Kanthimathi Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin 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 Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in P.A.Mu.B17/F 1389/08, dated 31.7.2008 and to quash the same.) 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved against the Legal Heir Certificate issued in favour of the fifth respondent. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. According to the Petitioner, she is also one of the legal heir of one deceased Maharajan. The impugned certificate was also issued as early as on 31.07.2008. Now that certificate is sought to be challenged before this Court after a period of nearly eight years. However, in the meantime, the Petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.227 of 2012, on the file of the Distric...
M/s. Athavan Impex, Tuticorin represented by its Proprietor Vs. The As ...
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 to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on the supplementary claim for duty drawback made by the Petitioner dated 8.12.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider his request, dated 8.12.2016 calling for supplementary claim for duty drawback. 2. Mr.R.Nandakumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel 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 making such claim only on 08.12.2016, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court and filed the present Writ Petition on 13.12.2016, without even waiting for a reasonable time for the respondent to act on the Petitioner's request. Therefore I consider the present Writ Petition as highly pre-matured. 5. Accordingly, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »