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. Venkataraman (deceased) and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the writ court dated 28.09.2011 made in W.P.No.25493 of 2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 28.09.2011 made in W.P.No.15896 of 2011, by which, the writ court, dismissed the writ petition filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, against the respondent herein, to quash the proceedings in Letter No.22610/E.IV/2009-1 Public (Estt.IV) Department dated 13.11.2009 and consequently, declined to issue a direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the appellant, in the post of Assistant Section Officer (Strictly Confidential) with effect from 29.12.1997, as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.772, Public (Establishment-IV) Department, dated 04.09.2002. 2. Appellant (since deceased), had stated that he was a Junior Assistant, in City Police Office, Chennai. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.1412, Public (Establishment - IV) Departmnet dated 10.11.1997, he was appointed as ...
P.M. Matcharani Vs. The Fit Person/Deputy Commissioner and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.53/2016/E 1 dated 30.11.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allocate the pooja murai to the petitioner on the dates allocated as a share of the petitioner's mother Anandhavalli in her capacity as a hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai i.e., from 02.12.2016 and on all such allocated days in the above said temple.) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 30.11.2016, rejecting the petitioner's request to conduct pooja as a matter of right in the place of his brother, namely, Chellapandi, who was suspended, pending enquiry. 2. It appears that the petitioner has also filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.21752 of 2016, challengi...
P. Sivakumar Vs. Soundaram and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.294 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram.) 1. The defendant, in O.S.No.294 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, is the appellant. 2. The suit was filed for refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the plaintiffs under the sale agreement dated 08.01.2008. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have entered into agreement of sale for purchase of certain immovable properties from the defendant on 08.01.2008. The total sale consideration agreed was Rs.18,97,200/-. Out of the said amount, the plaintiffs paid the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the period of 120 days was fixed for performance and the said period expired on 05.05.2008. The plaintiffs claims that they came to know that the defendant had attempted to sell the property to third parties...
Chinnapillai @ Unnamalai and Another Vs. Periyasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 in A.S.No.70 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 in O.S.No.128 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur.) 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. Having lost before both the Courts, this Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. The first plaintiff is the wife of one Mr.Balakrishnan. The second plaintiff is the daughter of first plaintiff and Mr. Balakrishan. The first defendant, Mr.Periyasamy is the brother of Mr. Balakrishnan. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of first defendant, the fourth defendant is the widow of Mr. Nadesan, who is another brother of Mr. Balakrishnan. 3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is one Mr. Mottaiyan Gounder had three sons by name Mr.Periyasami, Mr.Nadesan ...
Petchiammal Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the construction of the petitioner's house in Survey No.1581/1B2 of Mayiladumparai Village, Ambedkar Colony, Varusanadu Panchayat, Aundipatty Taluk, Theni District, as per the proceedings of the second respondent in is Na.Ka.No.130/2014/the3, dated 14.07.2014.) Order: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the construction of the petitioner's house in Survey No.1581/1B2 of Mayiladumparai Village, Ambedkar Colony, Varusanadu Panchayat, Aundipatty Taluk, Theni District. 2. The petitioner seeks such relief based on an allotment of house under Chief Minister's Green House with Solar Light Scheme through proceedings, dated 14.07.2014, issued by the second respondent. Even through the petitioner has raised some grounds in the present writ petition in support of her claim, f...
S. Muthukrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner's land in Survey No.109/1, Thenur Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. based on the petitioner's application, dated 16.02.2015 ,within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition 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, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
V. Veeranan and Another Vs. Varadharajan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order, dated 27.04.2013, made in I.A.No.1056 of 2011 in O.S.No.299 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order, dated 27.04.2013, made in I.A.No.1056 of 2011 in O.S.No.299 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S.No.299 of 2004 and the respondents 1 and 2 in I.A.No.1056 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. The respondents 1 to 6, who are third parties, are the petitioners in I.A.No.1056 of 2011. The respondents 7 and 8, who are the defendants 2 and 3, are the respondents 3 and 4 in the said I.A. 3. Facts of the case: (i) Originally, on 19.02.1993 the first plaintiff Mookammal @ Irulayee filed the suit in O.S.No.283 of 1983, before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, agains...
Muthulakshmi Vs. Usharani Seenu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.730 of 2013 in O.S.No.485 of 2007, dated 02.08.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.) 1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 02.08.2014 passed in I.A.No.730 of 2013 in O.S.No.485 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, wherein the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing trial in O.S.No.485 of 2007 which has been filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for injunction not to alienate the property till the disposal of the suit. The petitioner filed the written statement and contested the same. While so, when the matter was posted on 06.09.2010 for the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, the chief-examination...
Seeman @ Subash and Another Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, K-2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-V), Chennai in S.C.No.308 of 2007 dated 31.10.2007.) A-1 and A-2 in the Sessions case in S.C.No.308 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-V), Chennai are the appellants. 2. A-1 was tried for charges under Sections 302, 341, 325 IPC and A-2 was tried for charges under Section 341, 302 r/w 34, and 325 r/w 34 IPC. 3. After trial, the trial Court acquitted them from the charges under section 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC respectively. However, found them guilty and sentenced them as detailed below: ad>AccusedConviction Sentence A-1(i) Section 341 IPC 6 months R.I. (ii) Section 325 IPC2 years R.I. and fine Rs.2000/- i/d 3 months R.I. (iii) Section 304(ii) IPC 4 years R.I. and fine Rs.8000/- i/d 6 months R.I.A-2(i) Section 304(ii) r/w 34 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine Rs.8000/- i/d 6 months R.I. (ii) Section 325 r...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Court Notice for the Respondent/Accused was served on 17.09.2016. Today when the matter has come up for hearing, there is no representation before this Court on the side of the Respondent either in person or through Learned Counsel. As such, this Court proceeds to deal with the present Criminal Original Petition on merits. 3. It comes to be known that the Petitioner/Appellant/ Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Original Petition before this Court seeking 'Grant of Special Leave' to prefer an Appeal, as an aggrieved person, as against the Judgment dated 04.07.2016 in S.T.C.No.45 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.I), Erode. 4. It transpires that the trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment on 04.07.2016 in S.T.C.No.45 of 2012, at paragraph 11, had, inter alia, observed that '... the present Complainant (Appellant) had not produced evidence through witnesses and documents to show that he wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »