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.
C. Manikandan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.14193 of 2009, dated 27.10.2010.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner sought an appointment on compassionate grounds on account of demise of his father who was employed as Artisan Grade- I in the services of the third respondent and the writ petition filed by him seeking for the said relief was dismissed on 27.10.2010. Challenging the legality of the same, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would aver among other things that he has completed the Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and he would further state that his father was employed as Arisan Grade - I in the services of the third respondent, which is the non-minority and aided Engineering College governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Unfortunately, his f...
R. Tamilselvi Vs. A. Sangamuthu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 30.11.2015 rendered in A.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the decree and the judgment dated 20.12.2013 rendered in O.S.No.140 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, by allowing this Second Appeal.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2012 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai. 2. The first respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2012 for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant after receiving the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- deposited by the plaintiff in Court. The suit is also to direct the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards damages for the use and occupation of ...
D. Ramakrishnan Vs. The Director of School Education, Chennai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.233/2010 dated 20.08.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondent to sanction 1 set of incentive increment for M.Ed., to the petitioner and confer all the consequential benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.233/2010 dated 20.08.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondent to sanction 1 set of incentive increment for M.Ed., to the petitioner and confer all the consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 24.03.1982 in the Education Department of the School. After joined in the school, he has completed the B.A.(His...
The Management of M/s. Sri Balaji Cylinders Pvt.Ltd., Palavakkam Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.31191 of 2014, dated 17.3.2016 in W.P.No.31191 of 2014.) P. Parthiban, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 17.3.2016 in W.P.No.31191 of 2014, in and by which, the writ petition filed by M/s.Sri Balaji Cylinders Employees Union, the first respondent herein, came to be allowed, setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 23.10.2013 and remanded the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. 2. The appellant is involved in manufacture of cylinders and the factory commenced its operation in the year 1981. In 1984, a dispute was raised by M/s.Sri Balaji Cylinder Employees Union (in short, 'the Employees Union') first respondent herein, alleging that 432 workmen were disengaged from their employment on and from 7.11.1984 without following due ...
R. Muthulakshmi Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Postmaster Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order of the 5th respondent which is made in O.A.No.1146 of 2012 dated 22.11.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to go on retirement on medical grounds.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made in O.A.No.1146/2012 dated 22.11.2013, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has declined to quash the order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul - 624 001/Respondent No.4 dated 21.09.2012 and consequently, declined to issue any direction to the respondents, to permit the petitioner to go on retirement, on medical grounds. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that the petitioner, entered postal service in the year 1983 as Reserved Training Pool candidate against the quota reserved for ST commun...
Seethammal Vs. Mathammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.44 of 2008 dated 19.11.2010 in reversing the well considered judgment in O.S.No.144 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode dated 04.04.2007.) 1. The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgement and decree dated 19.11.2010 made in A.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2007 made in O.S.No.144 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration: (i) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction where the first defendant has no title ov...
The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy, rep. by its Executive Officer/Joint C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, made in A.S.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004, made in O.S.No.60 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirapalli.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, made in A.S.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004, made in O.S.No.60 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirapalli. 2. The appellant is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.60 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy, who lost in both the Courts below. The first respondent Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee Sri.K.Santhana Gopalakrishnan, is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 and 3, the Trustees of the first respondent, a...
The Management of MRF Ltd., Thiruvottiyur, Rep. by its Plant General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: in W.A.No.186 of 2016: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the order dated 17.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.36311 of 2015 by the learned single Judge of this Court.) Common Judgment: V. Parthiban, J. 1. Since the facts, subject matter and the issues are interlinked with one another in all the captioned matters, it would be appropriate to take up all the matters together for being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 186, 559 and 560 of 2016 have been directed against the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 17.12.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.29636 of 2015 and 36311 of 2015. 3. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the above said Writ Appeals are as follows: M/s.MRF Employees Union (hereinafter, referred to 'the Employees Union') has come forward with a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29636 of 2015 before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "To issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of t...
T.K. Asraf Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25 00 000/- towards compensation for the loss occurred on account of the illegal act of demolishing the structure at Door No.823/A, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and further restore the possession to the petitioner.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for the loss occurred on account of the illegal act of demolishing the structure at Door No.823/A, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and further, restore the possession to the petitioner. 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the land at Door No. 823/A, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 belongs to the respondent corporation and the same had been given in lease to the father of the petitioner in the year 1981 wherein, a structure was put up and the petitioner's father was carrying on business in the name and style o...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2016
1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to extend the period of treatment of the petitioner's father, namely, P.Dharamchand (Convict Prisoner No.6322), for a further period of five weeks, from 30.11.2016 to 07.01.2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. It has been stated that the convict prisoner, namely, P.Dharamchand (Convict Prisoner No.6322), is in need of intensive treatment, at Sampat Nursing Home, Mylapore, Chennai, for the illness relating to bone grafting and for cardiac and ortho related issues. In such circumstances, this court had passed an order, on 4.11.2016, which reads as follows: "6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we pass the following order: (a) The detenu, namely, P.Dharamchand, son of Pannalal, who is now confined at the Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai, is permitted to go for the sur...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »