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.
K. Chandrapiraba and Another Vs. R. Kanagaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 27.09.2012 in I.A.No.58 of 2012 in O.S.No.282 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge of Erode at Bhavani.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and final order dated 27.09.2012 in I.A.No.58 of 2012 in O.S.No.282 of 2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Erode at Bhavani. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the Suit and the Suit is for partition and separate possession. The petitioners found that during the pendency of the Suit, some of the suit scheduled properties had been sold by the co-owners (R2 and R3), who are all not parties to the Suit. Therefore, the petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.39 of 2011 to implead the third party purchasers as defendants in the Suit. The trial Court allowed I.A.No.39 of 2011, seeking impleadment on 14.03.2012 and consequent on the allowing of ...
P.C.N.M. Abdul Wahab Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate action under section 68 of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 by consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.04.2016 and thereby handover the possession and records of the wakf, namely, Dindigul Town, Haji P.C.Naina Mohamed Rowther Vedachandur Mohamedia Theru, Chinna Masjid Manbaul Hasanath Madrasa Dharmam to the petitioners within a time frame as fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate action under Section 68 of the Wakf Act, by considering his representation, dated 24.04.2016. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that such representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of so far. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits and the claim made by the petitioner, I only direct the fourth respondent to consider the representation of...
D. Kuppuraj Vs. Madeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 16.06.2012 in I.A.No.1012 of 2011 in O.S.No.187 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order dated 16.06.2012 passed in I.A.No.1012 of 2011 in O.S.No.187 of 2009 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the suit is filed for specific performance. A written statement was filed in which in Paragraph 4, the petitioner/defendant has stated that one Mr.Devarajan had executed a 'Will' on 14.07.1997 in respect of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed an Application in I.A.No.1012 of 2011, under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, seeking a direction for production of the 'Will', which according to the plaintiff is in the custody of the defendant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant opposed the Application by stating that n...
R. Balakrishnan Vs. The Secretary to Government Public (Political Pens ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 24.11.2014, to extend the benefits in G.O.Ms.No.748, Public (political Pension -II) Department, dated 11.8.1995 to grant continuance of the freedomfighter pension under political pension to the petitioner for lifetime as the petitioner is crippled and disabled with Advance Osteoarthrosis disease with virus deformity underwent left knee replacement or to grant any other appropriate special life pension to the petitioner to sustain the rest of the life, within stipulated time.) 1. The petitioner now aged about 68 years seeking for freedom fighter pension under the category of the son of the freedom fighter based on the G.O.Ms.No.748, Public (political Pension -II) Department, dated 11.8.1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- His father, by name, Ramasamy was a freedom fighter and receiv...
Anand Kumar Jhawar Vs. State represented by: The Deputy Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondents to register the case based on the complaint dated 13.08.2016 pending on the file of the respondents police.) 1. This is a text book case to demonstrate as to how an ingenious litigant can use the legal system for executing an illegal act. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. The factual matrix of this case is as follows: 3.1 Sri Meenakshi Enterprises (P) Ltd. (for brevity SMEPL ) are the owners of the commercial complex at No.73, VVK Traders, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17, which is a commercial hub of Chennai, where, every inch of land is worth a goldmine. SMEPL entered into a rental agreement on 15.12.1996 with Sakthi Fast Foods, a partnership firm with K.M. Suresh, Abdul Latheef and V.S. Jayarajan as its partners and had rented out 2,500 sq. ft. of basement area to them. Some time in October 1998, the tenancy was changed ...
The Madras Seva Sadan by its Honorary General Secretary C. Prema Kumar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- a) directing the Defendant or any other person claiming through him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property viz. 12A, New Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and more particularly described in the schedule. b) directing the Defendant to pay mesne profits of Rs.54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Only) at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month till this date. c) directing the Defendant to pay mesne profits at Rs.1,50,000/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date the Defendant delivers vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. d) directing the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff is the Madras Seva Sadan, a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and repres...
M. Lakshmi Vs. The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Kokkirakulam, Tir ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the Impugned orders of the 1st Respondent in Mu.Sa.X.1/129/14, Mu.Sa.X.1/130/14, Mu.Sa.X.1/132/14 dated 30.09.14, respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry after affording opportunity to the petitioner.) 1. In all three Writ Petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. She is aggrieved against the individual order passed by the first respondent fixing the deficit stamp duty and demanding such payment from the petitioner under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that three sale deeds presented for registration before the second respondent by paying the required stamp duty, were not returned after registration and on the other hand, a proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was initiated and orders came to be passed by the first...
S. Saravanan Vs. The District Collector and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to carry out the proposal of the petitioner which was recommended by the District Task Force Committee dated 30.10.2013 for running and setting up the Digital Flex Printing under PEGP Scheme and pass such further or other orders.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus for sanctioning of the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. 2. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the petitioner's application was rejected by an order dated 12.04.2014 itself for the reasons stated thereunder. If that be the case, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said order in a manner known to law. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no such order is communicated to the petitioner so far. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to ...
Pavunu @ Bhavani Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Neyveli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam in S.C.No.57 of 2015, dated 23.06.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.57 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. She stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 26.11.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this case was one Pavadai. P.Ws.1 to 4, are the wife, son-in-law, daughter and son respectively of the deceased. P.W.5 is his niece. All of them are residing at Se...
I. Sanjeeviyammal Vs. The Secretary (Village Panchayat) to Govt. St. G ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire balance consideration amount from the Fund of Hon'ble Pradhan Mantri Indira Gramin Awaas Yojana (PMAY) Housing Scheme to the petitioner, based on her representation dated 01.08.2016, within time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire balance consideration amount from the Fund of Hon'ble Pradhan Mantri Indira Gramin Awaas Yojana (PMAY) Housing Scheme based on her representation dated 01.08.2016. 2. The petitioner was allotted a house under Indira Yogana Scheme with a total sanction of Rs.1,20,000/- for construction of such house. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondents have released a sum of Rs. 84,405/-, the balance amount has not been paid to the petitioner, even though the construction has been completed in full. 3. A cou...