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.
Salammal and Others Vs. S.M. Jaya Saaravanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed Under 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 03.11.2015 in O.S.No.2 of 2012) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri are the appellants. An extent of 2 acres punja land, belongs to the first appellant/first defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant; the 4th defendant is the daughter of the first defendant and the 5th defendant is the grandson. The first defendant entered into an agreement to sell the SAID property to the plaintiff for Rs.42,33,000/- and received Rs.10,00,000/- as advance. An agreement to sell was executed on 11.01.2012. The sale deed was agreed to be executed within a period of 6 months. Possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. He was allowed to develop the property into house sites. The first appellant agreed to hand over the p...
M. Murali Krishnan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order of transfer in Ref: Admn:P3:2235 dated 25.10.2013 and the consequent relieving order No.654/687 dated 25.11.2013 served on 29.11.2013 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order of transfer in Ref: Admn:P3:2235 dated 25.10.2013 and the consequential relieving order No.654/687 dated 25.11.2013, served on 29.11.2013, passed by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same. 2. The very short facts, which are required for the disposal of the writ petition, are follows: The petitioner while working as a Conductor at Bodinayakanur Branch of the respondent Transport Corporation was transferred to Palani Branch by order of transfer dated 25.10.2013, pursuant to which by the relieving order dated 29.11.2013...
Ajithkumar Vs. Simmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order, dated 3.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Mahe, Puducherry in M.C.No.7 of 2006.) 1. The respondent in the Maintenance case in M.C.No.7 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Mahe, Puducherry is the revision petitioner. 2. On 10.7.2003, the revision petitioner married the first respondent in Mahe, Union Territory of Puducherry. On 19.5.2004, their daughter/second respondent was born. Difference of opinion arose between the spouses. The revision petitioner is working and residing in Moradabad, U.P. The first respondent along with her daughter started living in her parents house in Mahe. The couples got separated. 3. In the circumstances, she filed M.C.No.7 of 2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe seeking maintenance for herself and for her daughter. 4. The revision petitioner filed counter opposing her claim...
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal, filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the Order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.3128 of 2014, dated 03.06.2015.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is an inhouse Appeal against the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition, instituted by the respondent herein. 2. The crux of the matter is, Whether the appellants are justified in not considering the candidature of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade I ? 3. On 12th July, 2013, the Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai, published a Final Seniority List of various categories of employees, such as, i) Head Clerks, ii) Assistants and iii) Executive Officer Grade II. It is a combined Seniority List, arranged in the descending order from the date of entry into the grade concerned. In that List, admittedly, the name of the writ petitioner figures at Serial No.177, out of 240 names. Obviously, the writ petitioner is happy and content with ...
M. Glittaus Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the Swaraj Mazda Tempo bearing registration No.TN-75-H-6098 seized by the second respondent on 12.07.2015, to the petitioner.) Order: K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 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....
Chellammal and Another Vs. Kandasamy Gounder (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.10.2003 and made in O.S.No.49 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem (Fast Track Court-I, Salem). 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem (Fast Track Court-I, Salem) is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of her half share. 2. The gist of the allegations in the pliant are as follows: The first plaintiff got married to one Ramasamy @ Sellappan in the year 1970. The second plaintiff was born in the year 1974 out of the said wed lock. The husband of the 1st plaintiff was leading wayward life. He started selling the valuables at a very low price in order to meet the expenditure of his extraordinary life style. In view of the said attitude of her husband, the 1st plaintiff sold her jewels for Rs.65,000/- and handed over the sale proceeds...
C. Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to Government School Education Departme ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order or the 4th respondent in O.Mu.No.1808/A4/2013 dated 17.07.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 herein to approve the petitioner's appointment as Tamil Pandit in the 5th respondent's School w.e.f. 04.10.2010 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 4th respondent in O.Mu.No.1808/A4/2013 dated 17.07.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 herein to approve the petitioner's appointment as Tamil Pandit in the 5th respondent's School with effect from 04.10.2010 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance. 2. The facts in nutshell, which leads to the filing o...
Siva @ Sivaraman Vs. Shanthi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 21.2.2011 made in C.M.P.No.158 of 2010 in M.C. No.44 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem.) This revision is by the respondent in M.C.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are mother and children. They sought for maintenance in M.C.No.44 of 2010 in the said Court under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. 3. In the said petition in CMP No.158 of 2010, they have sought for interim maintenance. 4. The revision petitioner in his counter, indirectly denies his marriage with the first respondent herein. 5. After hearing both sides, perusing the pleadings, on 21.2.2011, by his order, the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem, granted Rs.600/- each totalling to Rs.2,400/- per month to the respondents till the disposal of the main maintenance petition. 6. Aggrieved, the husband has directed this revision. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petition...
Muthusamy Vs. Minor Dhanraj Rep.by next friend and father Natarajan Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 made in A.S.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2008 made in O.S.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.) 1. The first defendant in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 made in A.S.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2008 made in O.S.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in the second appeal. Whether the judgments of the court below are vitiated in that they have decreed the suit for permanent injunction in spite...
E. Navin and Others Vs. The Director of School Education and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioners to continue the studies in the 12th standard of the Higher Secondary Course in the 3rd respondent school in the Academic Year 2016-2017.) 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to allow them to continue their studies in the 12th standard of the Higher Secondary Course in the 3rd respondent school in the Academic Year 2016-2017. 2. According to the petitioners they appeared for the 11th standard common examination in the month of March, 2016 and thereafter the petitioners' parents were called separately along with other similarly placed persons by the 3rd respondent and advised to get transfer certificate from the school of their wards and join some other school. When the parents questioned, they were told that their wards did not fare well in the 11th standard annual examination. There...