Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
R.T.M.L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Venkanji, Kollemcode Post, J. Ne ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings in Aa.Ni.Mu.No.364/Aa3/12, dated 17.11.2012 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of Mr.S.Nixen as Junior Assistant in the Petitioner's School from 2.5.2008 and pay all the attendant benefits from 2.5.2008 onwards.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the third respondent passed in Aa.Ni.Mu.No.364/Aa3/12, dated 17.11.2012, vide which, the 3rd respondent has returned the proposal, directing the petitioner school to act in accordance with G.O.No.115, dated 30.5.2007. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondents to accord approval for the appointment of Mr.S.Nixen as Junior Assistant in the petitioner school w.e.f. 2.5.2008 with all attendant monetary benefits. 2. He...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Karur K.C.P. Packkagings Limited, Rep. By its General Manager, Ka ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to Adjudicate and to pass final order/order-in-original pursuant to the show cause notice C.No.VIII/20/1562/2015-DBK dated 21.01.2016 considering the reply dated 15.03.2016 within a reasonable time as fixed by this Honble Court.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the third respondent to adjudicate and pass final order/order-in-original pursuant to the show cause notice in C.No.VIII/20/1562/2015-DBK, dated 21.01.2016. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though they have given their explanation to the show cause notice as early as on 15.03.2016, the third respondent has not passed the final order/order-in-original till this date. 3. Though the petitioner has raised so many grounds in support of their contention on merits of the matter, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to go into the same and give any f...
Tag this Judgment!Rengasamy Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka/19371/2015 A6 dated 25.11.2015 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the third respondent made in patta proceedings. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when there is a title dispute between the parties, the revenue authorities cannot go into the same and on the other hand, they have to relegate the parties to agitate the matter before the competent civil Court. 3. Needless to say that if there is any title dispute, it is for the appellate authority to find out the same and if he comes to a conclusion that there is a title dispute between the parties, necessarily the parties have to be relegated to the competent civil Court to agitate their respective rights. Needless to say that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has right of appeal before the Reve...
Tag this Judgment!Shamshed Begum Vs. Sadiq Basha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as against the judgment and decree O.S.No.9 of 2005, on the file of Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 10.03.2006.) The unsuccessful plaintiff, in O.S.No.9 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, is the appellant herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit, in O.S.No.9 of 2005, before the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, for partition and separate possession and also for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from in any way alienating the suit properties. 4. After contest, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, vide Judgment and Decree, dated 10.03.2006 and hence this appeal. 5. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The lands, vacant site, houses more fully described in the Schedule of Property was acquired by...
Tag this Judgment!Selina Precilla and Another Vs. N. Chandrasekaran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the petition and order dated 18.04.2013 and made in I.A.No.3084 of 2013 in I.A.No.149 of 2013 in O.S.No.76 of 2013, on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.) 1. The 3rd parties in the suit in O.S.No.76 of 2013, on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai have filed the Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order in I.A.No.3084 of 2013 dated 18.04.2013. 2. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.76 of 2013 has filed an application in I.A.No.3084 of 2013 in I.A.No.149 of 2013 in O.S.No.76 of 2013 seeking prayer before the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to list down in detail the assets, equipments, materials that are lying in front of the shop belonging to the petitioner inclusive and not restricted to the conditions, status of the same and take photographs and file a report into the C...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Mohammed Vs. The Taluk Officer/Tahsildar, Madurai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to survey the Petitioner's land which is comprised in S.No.77/2A1A measuring an extent of 5 cents situated at Thanakkankulam, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District and fix four boundaries within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. No representation for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to survey the Petitioner's land which is comprised in S.No.77/2A1A measuring an extent of 5 cents situated at Thanakkankulam, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District and to fix the four boundaries of the said land. 3. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 4. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 5. It appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Nagerkovil, Nager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.01.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagerkovil.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award of Rs.2,42,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation for the death of Muneera Bagam aged about 14 years in the accident occurred on 16.02.2001 when she was travelling in a Auto which was hit by a Tempo driven in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. Therefore, the claim petition is filed. 2. On contest, the Tribunal found that the driver of the Tempo alone was responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.2,42,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred only). The said award is being challenged before this Court by the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing fo...
Tag this Judgment!State rep. By Inspector of Police, Coimbatore and Another Vs. Mahesh a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Referred trial for confirmation of death sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore by judgment dated 27.09.2016 in S.C.No.67/2015 on the file of. Prayer: in Crl.A.No.752/2016:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment in S.C.No.67 of 2015 dated 27.09.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.) Common Judgement: S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court, Coimbatore has submitted the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.67 of 2015 for confirmation of sentence of death imposed on Mr.Mahesh, who is the sole accused in the said case. Mr.Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 324, 376, 302, 397 and 307 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.09.2016, the trial Court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him as detailed below:- ad>Sl.NoSection of lawSentence1449 I.P.C.,Imprisonm...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Officer, h ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the above Review Application SR.No.66223 of 2016.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Review Applicants informs this Court that he had addressed a letter dated 10.11.2016 to the Joint Registrar (Writs) of this Court, whereby and wherein, he had mentioned that he is not pressing the W.M.P.No.16541 of 2016 and in regard to the same, he had already addressed a letter to the Registry dated 24.10.2016. The said letter dated 10.11.2016 of the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Review Applicants is placed on record and the same is accepted by this Court. 2. In view of the aforesaid letter dated 10.11.2016 of the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Review Applicants, this W.M.P.No.16541 of 2016 in REV. APPLW.SR No.66223 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed....
Tag this Judgment!N. Hariharan Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organizat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension to till the completion of six months' period under suspension at the rate of 50% last pay and thereafter to issue at the rate of 75% last pay along with dearness allowance, other permitted allowances and monetary benefits according to the 53(i)(a) (1) of Fundamental Rules.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the completion of six months' period under suspension at the rate of 50% and thereafter, to issue at the rate of 75% last drawn pay along with dearness allowance, other permitted allowances and monetary benefits, according to the provisions of 53(i)(a) (1) of Fundamental Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »