Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
Beena Kosaraju Vs. Sarath Kakumanu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit filed under Order XXIV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs: (a) that the properties comprised in the estate of late K.Subbiah, morefully described in the schedules hereunder be divided by metes and bounds and 1/4th (one fourth) share be allotted to the plaintiff; (b) Consequently, that the defendants be directed to render true and proper accounts of the income earned through the properties, running businesses and properties purchased thereof from and out of the assets and businesses of late K.Subbiah and give 1/4th share thereof to the plaintiff; Permanent injunction restraining the second defendant, her agents and servants, any person and every person claiming though or under her in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's use, occupation and enjoyment of the property morefully described as item No. 2 in the schedule hereunder; (d) that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to divide the immovable properties compris...
Tag this Judgment!Madhaiyan and Others Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Kadathur Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.13 of 2014 dated 04.07.2015.) Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.13 of 2014 dated 04.07.2015. Prayer:Revision filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondents 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.13 of 2014 dated 04.07.2015.). Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.107 of 2016 are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.13 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. There were three other accused in the case who were arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 6. The appellants in Crl.A.No.107 of 2016 are the respondents 1 to 3 in Crl.A.No.461 of 2016 and accused 4 to 6 are the res...
Tag this Judgment!V. Uma Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Labo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned rejection order No.E2/741/2011-1, dated 24.1.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the Petitioner notionally to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour based on her seniority bearing Seniority No.1289, w.e.f. The date on which her immediate junior in the cadre of Superintendent has been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour and grant further all promotions, service, monetary and other attended pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his impugned rejection order No.E2/741/2011-1, dated 24.1.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the Petitioner notionally to the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour based...
Tag this Judgment!Accord Finance and Properties Ltd., Rep.by its Director R. Ramakrishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to transfer E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.668 of 2014 including the miscellaneous petitions in E.A.No.74 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif at Chengalpattu to the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to be tried along with O.S.No.119 of 2016 forming the subject matter of Execution Petition and the connected suits, as per orders of this Court passed in CRP No.60 and 793 of 2016 dated 01.07.2016.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.668 of 2014 is the petitioner, who has filed the above petition seeking transfer of E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.668 of 2014 including the miscellaneous petition in E.A.No.74 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif at Chengalpattu to the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to be tried along with O.S.No.119 of 2016 forming the subject matter of Execution Petition and the connected suits, as per orders of this Co...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thirupathi Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Common Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 09.03.2012 made in I.A.Nos.41 and 42 of 2012 in MCOP.No.266 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Namakkal.) Common Order: 1. The petitioner/claimant in MCOP.No.266 of 2005 is the Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.No.42 of 2012 in MCOP.No.266 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. 2. The case of the petitioner/claimant is that he has filed the above MCOP.No.266 of 2005 for claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for the accident occurred to the petitioner and he sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body including severe fracture on his right radius, left forearm, left tibia, right foot and left patella, against the respondent/Transport Corporation. 3. The petitioner claiming that when on 14.02.2005 at about 3.45 a.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Balaramanan Vs. The Tahsildar, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi Distr ...
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 respondent to issue patta to the Petitioners property comprised in Kanam Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District covered under the Patta No.505 in S.No.149/2A, Patta No.507 in S.Nos.149/2B, 149/2D, 149/10A, 149/10B, 149/11, 149/12, 149/14A, 149/14B, 149/15A, 149/15B, 149/9, Patta No.1039 in Survey No.147/18, 147/6, Patta No.511 in Survey No.151/11B and Pallipathu Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District on the basis of his representations dated 28.10.2016 and 12.09.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to issue patta to the Petitioners property comprised in Kanam Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District covered under the Patta No.505 in S.No.149/2A, Patta No.507 in S.Nos.149/2B, 149/2D, 149/10A, 149/10B, 149/11, 149/12, 149/14A, 149/14B, 149/15A, 149/15B, 149/9, Patta No.1039 in Survey No.147/...
Tag this Judgment!B. Muralidharan Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai made in A.S.No.31 of 2008 dated 18.11.2009, which was filed reversing the judgment and decree of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in O.S.No.6729 of 2000 dated 03.03.2006.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court, which reversed by the trial Court judgment allowing the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their status and ranking as shown in the plaint. 3. The plaintiff was allotted a Plot bearing No.2170 LIG-II, at Avadi by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the first defendant on 30.01.1993 vide Ex.A-4. The Lease-cum-Sale agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the third defendant vide Ex.B-10. The average tentative costs of the plot was fixed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraj Vs. S. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent r/w O.36 R.9 of Original Side Rules against the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in Application No.1663 of 2012 in O.P.No.341 of 2010 on the file of this Court.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant herein filed an application in A.No.1663 of 2012 in O.P.No.341 of 2010 before the learned Single Judge of this Court praying to revoke the grant of probate of Will dated 7.02.2007 made in O.P.No.341 of 2010. The learned Single Judge, by Order dated 31.10.2012 dismissed the Original Application. Challenging the same, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 3. The Original Petition in O.P.No.341 of 2010 was filed by the respondent herein, seeking grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 07.02.2007 executed by one Ms.S.Sulochana. Accordingly, Probate was granted. The appellant all...
Tag this Judgment!A. Arulmary Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the death/retirement benefits to the Petitioner in view of the representation dated 19.12.2016) 1. The benefits bestowed by law upon an employee in recognition of his committed continuous loyal and devoted duty by payment of the pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. are in the nature of property. 2. This right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law, as right to property has been recognised under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be paid in time, is reflected, in the case ofDr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P., reported in(1999) 3 SCC 438, and the observation needs as under:- ....grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kanniammal @ Sakunthala Devi and Others Vs. M. Sumathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants. (a) a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute and sole owner of the plaint schedule property. (b) a direction to the defendants 1 to 13 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property. (c) a direction to the defendants 1 to 13 to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month in respect of the suit property from the date of the plaint till the date of handing over vacant possession by the said defendants. (d) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 13 from in any manner alienating, conveying or encumbering or letting out the suit property to any persons and/or make any further improvements or constructions in the suit properties a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 13 to demolish the existing structures that have been put up by them in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »