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.
V.R. Muthuveerappan Vs. The Director General of Police and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give effect to the order of Promotion as Inspector of Police issued to the petitioner, vide Proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.102393/NGB.I(2)/2014, dated 12.06.2015, as he was included in the Panel of the year 2010 and promoted with effect from the year 2011, based on the orders of this Court made in W.P.No.15549/2010 dated 20.07.2010, without reference to the subsequent charge memo dated 11.06.2015.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give effect to the order of Promotion as Inspector of Police issued to the petitioner, vide Proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.102393/NGB.I(2)/2014, dated 12.06.2015, as he was included in the Panel of the year 2010 and promoted with effect from the year 2011, based on the orders of this Court made ...
M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd., Rep by its Director K. Srinivasa Rao, Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Rc.No.1432/2012 [GandM], dated 28.04.2016 pertaining to the petitioner's lease hold patta land stone quarry measuring 2.37.5 hectares comprised in Survey S.F.No.164/2, 0.26.0 hectares in S.F.No.164/3, 0.27.0 hectares in S.F.No.165/4, and 1.05.0 hectares in S.F.No.165/5, totally measuring 3.95.5 hectares situated in Rakkathanpatti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant renewal of lease by reconsidering the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2012.) Challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 28.04.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application for granting of renewal of lease, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additio...
K. Muthu Vs. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tam ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the death of the petitioner's son due to electrocution.) Order: 1. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the death of the petitioner s son due to electrocution. 2. The facts in brief of the case are as follows: The son of the petitioner, namely, Muthupandi, aged about 40 years, and his wife while on 24.04.2010 were taking drinking water from the nearest pipe-line of their house, the electric wire between pole No.744952043 and 744952044 snapped and fallen down on the petitioner s son and caused his sudden and unexpected death on the spot. Subsequently, a case was registered in Crime No.201/2010 by the Sub-Inspector of police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, Madurai District and the body of the deceased was sent to Pos...
A. Roosewelt Vs. The State, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Arumanai P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 07.08.2014 made in S.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge [Mahalir Fast Track Court], at Nagercoil.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.107 of 2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge [Mahalir Fast Track Court], at Nagercoil. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 315, 302, 316 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 07.08.2014, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:- Section of LawSentence of imprisonmentFine amount376 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.No fine.315 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.316 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for lif...
Kamalamma and Others Vs. Sasidharan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree dated 09.01.2014 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, and made in A.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2008 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai made in O.S.No.509 of 1984.) 1. The defendants 10 to 12 and 14 to 16 and 18 are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. One Lilly Bhai has filed a suit in O.S.No.509 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. Since she died during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents 8 to 13 were impleaded as the legal representatives. The suit is for redemption of the suit property. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the suit property was mortgaged on 07.05.1920 by her predecessor-in-interest and that the mortgage was in favour of Raman Pillai, a nephew of Kesava Pillai and the mortgage was for Rs.280....
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 02.06.2014, passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 02.06.2014, passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court, Thanjavur. 2. It is a case of an injury caused due to the accident took place on 13.01.2008, around 2.00 p.m., near Thanjavur-Kollangari West Street Mela Theru. The injured filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2009, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Thanjavur and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appel...
M/s. WS Retail Services Private Limited, Rep., by its Authorised Signa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
1. The question which falls for consideration is to whether the retail sale of mobile phones, computer spare parts, personal healthcare products, car accessories, cameras etc., done by the petitioner via the online portal www.flipkart.com would qualify as an inter-state sale or a local sale within the union territory of Puducherry. 2. The petitioner's case is that the goods meant for sale are stored by them in warehouses located in Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Delhi and Noida and on an order being placed by the customer located anywhere in the country or in particular from Puducherry, as the present controversy has arisen from Puducherry, via the online portal, the goods corresponding to the purchase order will be transported from one of the warehouses to Puducherry by way of an inter-state sale between the petitioner and the customer on which the Central Sales Tax (CST) is paid by the petitioner in the State where the goods originate in terms of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax ...
K.R. Easwaran Vs. Rangasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.44 of 2008 dated 29.08.2008 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode, Erode district in partly allowing the judgement and decree made in O.S.No.663 of 2006 dated 30.10.2007 as to the permanent injunction relief alone on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Erode, Erode District.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 made in A.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007 made in O.S.No.663 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. 3. At the end of the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as pray...
S. Suresh Kumar (died) and Another Vs. N. Thavasilingaraj and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the II Additional District Munsif, Trichy to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.873 of 2011, on his file within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the II Additional District Munsif, Trichy to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.873 of 2011, on his file within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioners, the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.873 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Trichy for bare injunction against the petitioners in respect of the suit properties. The respondents herein filed the suit in the year 2011.The respondents/Plaintiffs has got the benefit of injunction before the trial Court and subsequently, the above said case has been adjourned from time to time and admittedly, the petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C before ...
K. Amirthammal Vs. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Thiru. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.25/2010, dated 30.03.2016 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with Selection Grade Pay from 04.09.2006 to 21.02.2007, direct the respondents to pay Provident Fund and Special Provident Fund to the petitioner and also to pay the pensionary benefits including pension from the date of retirement of the petitioner from 31.10.2010.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.25/2010, dated 30.03.2016, quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with Selection Grade Pay from 04.09.2006 to 21.02.2007, with further direction to the respondents to pay Provident Fund a...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »