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.
Sivasankara Padayachi and Another Vs. K.V. Mani
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 of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, allowing I.A.No.333/2013 in O.S.No.662 of 2007 by order dated 11.10.2013.) 1. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.333/2013 in O.S.No.662/2007 dated 11.10.2013 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore. 2. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the plaintiffs are the revision petitioners before this Court. 3. An ex-parte decree was passed against the 7th defendant on 06.04.2009. Against the said ex-parte decree, the respondent/7th defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.333/2013 and there is a delay of 1435 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a counter statement on the ground that the reasons set out in the affidavit filed by the respondent/7th defendant is not convincing and it is to be dism...
Radha Gurukkal and Others Vs. Swarnalatha and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.47 of 2009 dated 07.10.2010 partly allowing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.s.No.111 of 2004 dated 17.07.2009.) 1. The defendants have in this second appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2010 made in A.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2009 made in O.S.No.111 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs claiming partition and mesne profits and also maintenance. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal. (a) Is the findings of the lower Appellate Court that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the first appellant and...
V. Jeyanthi Vs. The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thoothukudi and Anot ...
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 provide the electricity connection to the residential house of the petitioner situated at Door No.4/138-3, Natarajapuram, Veppalodai, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for provision of electricity connection to her residential house situated at Door No.4/138-3, Natarajapuram, Veppalodai, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though such application was made as early as 21.02.2015, the respondents have not taken any steps to consider the same. Therefore, without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of only with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.02.2015, and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law,...
Vellaichamy Vs. The District Collector, Trichy 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 third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner with respect to properties in S.No.266/3 to an extent of 1.48 cents, S.No.267/8 to an extent of 86 cents, S.No.267/7 to an extent of 77 cents, S.No.269/3 to an extent of 88 cents and S.No.269/5 an extent of 51 cents totally an extent of acre 4 and 78 cents situated at Vellakulathu patti, Ayyan Reddiapatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District.) 1. The petitioner sought for change of patta in his name in respect of the land under dispute and the said request was rejected earlier on 09.02.2011 by the Tashildar, Manapparai, the third respondent herein. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.8061 of 2011, wherein, an order came to be passed on 12.06.2012 quashing the said order of rejection and remitting the matter back to the Tashildar to...
Natesan Vs. Arumugham and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2008 made in O.S.No.977 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.) 1. The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2008 made in O.S.No.977 of 2008 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal. (a)Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated in that it has given a finding about the right of acce...
Shanthi Krishnan, Vice President, Kalakshetra Colony Welfare Associati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fifth respondent culminating in the order dated 02.03.2005 in G.O.(3D)No.2 in Appeal No.43194/UD-1/2004, quash the same and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to demolish all construction at Plot Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 and forbear from putting up any construction on the seaward side of Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai-600 90.) R. Mahadevan, J 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the fifth respondent dated 02.03.2005 in G.O.(3D)No.2 in Appeal No.43194/UD-1/2004 and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to demolish all construction at Plot Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 and forbear from putting up any construction on the seaward side of Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai-600 90. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under: (i)The petiti...
K. Chinnamuthanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Govern ...
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 consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2014, to renovate and do maintenance work in the Athini Kanmai and other 39 kanmais situated at kallarathinipatti, Sivagangai District.) 1. The petitioner claiming to be an Ayakattudar of Athini Kanmai seeks for a direction to the respondents to renovate and do maintenance work in the said Athini Kanmai and other 39 kanmais situated at kallarathinipatti, Sivagangai District, by making representation on 16.12.2014. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered so far. Therefore, without going into the other merits of the matter, I only direct the respondents 5 and 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2014, and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date o...
S. Karunakaran Vs. K. Deepa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order in H.M.O.P.No.63/2012 dated 19.12.2013 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Neyveli, and thereby allow the revision.) M. Subramaniam, J. 1. Learned Counel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Commissioner of Central Excise III 121 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 to set aside the final order No.40753 of 2016 dated 09.05.2016 on the file of the respondent.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., vs. CCE Meerut [2010 (260) ELT 321 (SC). The Tribunal has held that no evidence is adduced by the Revenue to impeach the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and such a decision can be taken by the Commissioner on appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee has availed the Cenvat Credit facility on input services of tour operators for transportation of their employees to the factory and the rent a cab service for official purpose of the company. The department issued a show cause notice and objected the same on the ground that tour operator and rent a cab services do ...
A. Alagar Gounder Vs. The Thasildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni Distri ...
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 Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the first respondent's notice in Na.Ka.No.25/2014, dated 16.09.2014 and quash the same as it is illegal and without jurisdiction.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw both the writ petitions and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, both the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »