Chennai Court February 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.
P. Arumugam Vs. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of Mysore and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against the order dated 06.06.2011 made in W.P.No.35204 of 2007 by the learned single Judge. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide letter dated 07.12.2011 of the third respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to forthwith pay and settle all the claims of the petitioner including the provisional pension as detailed in the representations dated 17.08.2011, 25.08.2011 and 29.12.2011 payable to the petitioner from 31.07.2007 to 31.12.2011 of Rs.18,71,484.75 and to pay the balance of Rs.2,40,881.75 with the prevailing commercial rate of interest as on date together with a provisional monthly pension of Rs.18,964/- from 1st January, 2012 onwards after deducting the dues to the Bank and consequently, forbear the respondents herein, their subordin...
S. Rosali Arockiamari Vs. G. Mahalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.10.2015 made in O.S.SR.No.978 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchirappalli.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.10.2015, made in O.S.SR.No.978 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchirappalli. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are defendants. 3. The revision petitioner purchased the Plot No.53 measuring an extent of 1200 Sq. Ft, in the year 1994. According to the petitioner, next to the said Plot there was a vacant site measuring an extent of 600 Sq.ft. The petitioner took possession of said vacant land and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any obstruction. The petitioner constructed the house and she is in possession by obtaining electricity service connection and other facilities and also paying the taxes to ...
Sridhar and Another Vs. Arunkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I.A.No.718 of 2015 in O.S.No.119 of 2015 dated 15.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Gingee, Villupuram District.) 1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.119/2015 pending on the file of Principal District Munsif, Gingee, Villupuram District, are the petitioners in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the above suit. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction, based on an averment that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and petitioners 1 and 2 herein/defendants 1 and 2 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 2. The revision petitioners herein, who entered appearance in the said suit, without even filing a written statement, chose to file I.A.No.719/2015 under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC r/w Sectin 45 of the Indian Ev...
V. Pandiaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 3rd respondent police from coercing the petitioner to execute release deed in favour of 5th and 6th respondents by interfering in a civil dispute in O.S.No.72 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Senkottai in respect of the property in Resurvey No.79/5B and 80/5 Ayakudi, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to forbear the 3rd respondent police from coercing the petitioner to execute release deed in favour of 5th and 6th respondents by interfering in a civil dispute in O.S.No.72 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Senkottai in respect of the property in Resurvey No.79/5B and 80/5 Ayakudi, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for R5 and R6 and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Plea...
Kasi and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Trak court No.II, Salem, in S.C.No.82 of 2011 dated 02.03.2012. Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Trak court No.II, Salem, in S.C.No.82 of 2011 dated 02.03.2012.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellants are Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem. The trial court framed charges against each accused separately as detailed below:- ad>Serial Number of ChargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under1A1Section 449 of IPC2Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC3Section 392 of IPC ad>Serial Number of ChargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under1A2Section 449 of IPC2Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC3Section 3...
Nivas Vs. The State Rep By The Superintendent of Police, Erode Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records sequel to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2016 bearing No.Na.Ka.En.48/SDOG/Mike/2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner's organisation for conducting public meeting pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2016.) 1. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records sequel to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 24.02.2016 bearing No.Na.Ka.En.48/SDOG/Mike/2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner's organisation for conducting public meeting pursuant to the petitioner's repr...
T.N. Vidyanandan Vs. Sabita Devi, The Secretary to Government, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor for her wilful and wanton disobedience of the order to comply with the direction of this Hon'ble Court on 09.02.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Alleging disobedience of the order, made in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014, dated 09.02.2015, Mr.T.N.Vidyanandan/party-in-person, has filed the present contempt petition, to punish the respondent/Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Chennai. 2. Facts in nutshell, giving rise to allegation of wilful and wanton disobedience of the order, made in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014, dated 09.02.2015, are that the party-in-person, has challenged G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977, and sought for a declaration, to declare the Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment) Rules, 1977, as inoperative, in the light of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, in W....
P. Balakrishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission and protection for yearly Festival of Arulmigu Sri Pattathalachi Amman Temple situated at Thiruvasi Village Manachanallur Taluk Trichy District for the Nattupura Kalainigalchi it consists cultural activities and Gramia Padalgal programme on 02.03.2016 at night.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant permission and protection for yearly Festival of Arulmigu Sri Pattathalachi Amman Temple situated at Thiruvasi Village Manachanallur Taluk Trichy District for the Nattupura Kalainigalchi it consists cultural activities and Gramia Padalgal programme on 02.03.2016 at night. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct Adal Padal in connection with the festival of Arulmigu Sri Pattathalachi Amman Temple situated at Thiruvasi Village, Manach...
P. Ganesan Vs. State, by its Inspector of Police, Coimbatore.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.155 of 2009 dated 30.09.2010. ) S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The Appellant is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.155 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court No.IV, Tiruppur. The 1st Accused was one Mr.Durairaj. The trial court framed as many as four charges as detailed below:- ad>Number of ChargeCharge(s) framed againstCharges framed under Section1A1 and A2120(B) r/w 364, 394 and 302 of IPC2A2364 r/w 109 of IPC3A1394 of IPCA1 and A2394 r/w 397 of IPC4A1 and A2302 of IPC By judgement dated 30.09.2010, the trial court acquitted A1 from all the charges, but, convicted the appellant/A2 alone under Sections 302, 364 and 394 r/w 397 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for...
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep by its Managing Director and Another ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 02.07.2014 passed in W.P. No.25791 of 2010.) Common Judgment: Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Having regard to the commonality of the issue involved in these appeals, all appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For appreciating the issue on hand, it is better to have a look into the facts in each and every case, at the cost of this judgment being verbose. Accordingly, the particulars germane for the disposal of these appeals are set down as under. 3. W.A. No.1101 of 2014 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2014 made in W.P.No.25791 of 2010, which was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking to quash the letter dated 9th March 2009 and to direct the respondents therein to reconvey the property measuring 4.33 acres in S.Nos.612/5, 612/7, 612/8, 612/9, 612/10, at Sholinganallur village. The first respondent is the subse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »