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.
R. Mookkammal Vs. M. Pandiarajan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the Judgement and Decree in A.S. No.93 of 2009, dated 30.06.2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.114 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.) 1. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in A.S.No.93 of 2009, dated 30.06.2011, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.114 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009, passed by the larned District Munsif, Melur, this Second Appeal has been filed. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.114 of 2007 for specific performance in respect of a Sale Agreement, dated 19.11.2000 and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alien...
Ponnusamy and Another Vs. Athayammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 13.11.2013 made in I.A.No.409 of 2013 in I.A.No.591 of 2010 in O.S.No.97 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai.) 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.409 of 2013 in I.A.No.591 of 2010 in O.S.No.97 of 2010. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.97 of 2010 which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents filed the above suit for partition and defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte by the Trial Court, by order, dated 18.06.2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 filed the petition to set aside the ex-parte order in I.A.No.591 of 2010 and the same was allowed by recording no objection by the other side on 29.10.2010. The said petition was allowed with a condition to pay a sum of Rs.750/- as cost on or before 21.1...
S. Santhanakrishnan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein as special officer for effective administration of Yadava College (Co-education), Thiruppalai, Madurai, by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 11.11.2016.) 1. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Special Officer for effective administration of Yadava College (Co-education), Thiruppalai, Madurai, by considering his representation dated 11.11.2016. 3. It is seen that as against the existing committee, proceedings are initiated by issuing show-cause notice to the Office-bearers of the Committee. No doubt, it is stated that several writ petitions are pending touching upon the said proceedings initi...
Siva Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.142 of 2014, dated 26.11.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.142 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 IPC. By judgment dated 26.11.2015, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 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:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Kasthuri. The accused is her husband. After marriage, they were residing at Jalaagandapuram in Salem Town. Some time after the marriage accused and the deceased started re...
A. Kingston David Vs. The Secretary to Government, Department of Co-op ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appealfiled under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.3679 of 2013, dated 17.09.2014, by a learned Single Judge of this Court.) R. Subbiah, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 17.09.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.3679 of 2013, rejecting the claim of the appellant to direct the respondents to revise his appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from the date of his appointment and to further direct them to provide subsequent promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistant by considering his service rendered in the cadre of Record Clerk along with backwages and other monetary benefits. 2.0. The case of the appellant is that his father, who had been working as Senior Inspector in the Animal Husbandry Department, died in harness on 29.03.2002. The appellant herein made an application seeking employment on compassionate ground. By the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.139490/09/Pa.Tho.4, dated 28.12.2010, h...
S. Justin Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass order on the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2015.) 1. The petitioner seeks for extension of lease period upto end of 2016. For such purpose, he made a representation on 06.02.2015 and for considering the said representation, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Considering the above-said facts and circumstances, I find that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the fact that the extension period, which was sought for by the petitioner, itself is going to come to an end by this month. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
A. Nallamuthu Vs. R. Chandra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 20.11.2013 made in I.A.No.875 of 2013 in O.S.No.500 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.) 1. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.875/2013 in O.S.No.500/2008 dated 20.11.2013. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.500/2008 and the written statement was also filed in the suit and the trial commenced already.3. The plaintiff filed a petition in I.A.No.875/2013 with a prayer to send the suit sale agreement to the Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison of the thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression and signatures of the respondent along with the xerox copy of the sale agreement already taken, to give the expert's opinion. 4. The petition was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2008 itself for...
Krishnappa Vs. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the Fair and Decreetal orders of the Subordinate Judge of Hosur, dated 29.06.2012 in I.A.No.422 of 2011 in O.S.No.11 of 2007.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2007 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the dismissal of the condone delay of 2 years, 3 months and 9 days filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. 3. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 2007 before the learned learned Sub-Judge, Hosur, for specific performance. 4. The case of the petitioner is that this petitioner/defendant have executed agreement of sale on 14.09.2006 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule mentioned property for total sale consideration of Rs.2,94,000/- and in p...
D.A. Joyson Sethuraj Vs. The Board of Trustees, Tuticorin Trust, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% per annum from 01.03.2003 till 07.09.2009, on the retirement benefits of Rs.7,50,447/- settled belatedly.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% per annum from 01.03.2003 till 07.09.2009, on the retirement benefits of Rs.7,50,447/- settled belatedly. 2. The petitioner retired from service from the respondent Port on 28.02.2003. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to which, before the date of superannuation, on 28.02.2003, the petitioner was served with charges on 25.02.2003. Though the petitioner, subsequently, was allowed to retire by proceedings dated 27.02.2003, by a subsequent proceeding dated 13.03.2003, the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the pe...
P. Subramaniyan Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to shift the TASMAC Liquor outlet bearing No.10115 to the some other places as per the representation given to the first respondent by the petitioner under acknowledgment bearing No.TM/14/00413, dated 20.01.2014.) 1. The petitioner seeks for shifting the TASMAC Liquor outlet bearing No.10115 to the some other places, by making a representation to the first respondent, dated 20.01.2014. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation is yet to be considered. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, I only direct the first respondent to consider the said representation, dated 20.01.2014, and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »