Chennai Court April 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.
K. Chandran and Others Vs. R. Shanbagavalli and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 19.01.2016 made in I.A.No.15606/2014 in O.S.No.5710/2014.) 1. This revision arises out of an order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.15606/2014 in O.S.No.5710/2014 pending on the file of the said court. The above said suit came to be filed by R.Shanbagavalli, the first respondent herein, against the revision petitioners and respondents 2 to 9 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners herein (defendants 1 to 4) from alienating, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering the suit property through the 12th defendant, namely the 9th respondent herein (Sub Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai) and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners herein/defendants 1 to 4 from carrying on further construction activities in the plaint ...
P. Vairamuthu Vs. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Thi 5/3369/2013 dated 22-05-2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Thi 5/3369/2013 dated 22.05.2015. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions submitted that the petitioner as per the proceedings of the first respondent, he is entitled to occupy the shop and as on date there is no lock and key. Therefore, it is always liberty to occupy the shop as per the allotment. 3. Recording the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this writ petition is closed. No costs....
Senthil Kumar @ Anjugam Nagar Senthil and Others Vs. State, rep. by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: Common Prayer in all Criminal Appeals:- These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C., agaisnt the judgment passed in S.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessins Judge, Coimbatore dated 26.06.2012.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.1 of 2011, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. They stood charged for offence under Sections 302, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. By judgment dated 26.06.2012, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 323 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous ...
Devaraj Vs. Muthuvalli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.02.2016, made in I.A.No.815 of 2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Judge,Pudukkottai.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.02.2016, made in I.A.No.815 of 2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Judge, Pudukkottai. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.68 of 2007 for specific performance. The petitioner in his written statement denied that he agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent. On the other hand, he stated that he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent. The respondent insisted the petitioner to execute the agreement of sale and sign in the blank promissory note. The respondent filled up the promissory note as though petitioner borrowed money from one Palanisamy ...
S. Sivasami Vs. S. Balachandran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tirupur.) 1. The first defendant in the original suit O.S.No.42 of 2013 is the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence of this Court over the Subordinate Courts to strike off the plaint in the said suit on the ground that the said suit is not maintainable. 2. The above said suit came to be filed by the first respondent herein against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 for a bare injunction on the premise that he had got an agreement for sale from the petitioner and the second respondent; that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the vendors under the agreement were making efforts to sell the suit property to others and that hence, he was constrained to file the suit for the f...
N. Vinutha Vs. M. Ezhilan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.89 of 2014 in O.P.No.366 of 2005 pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.) This matter stands listed today for admission. 2. The respondent has entered appearance through a counsel and in fact he has filed a caveat. The counsel has taken notice on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is prepared to submit his arguments for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition on merits at the stage of admission itself. Hence, this Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.M.Mohanasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.M.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the respondent. The certified copy of the impugned order and the copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 3. The respondent herein has filed O.P....
V. Mallika Vs. The Director, Medical and Rural Health Services, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents No.4 and 6 to allow the petitioner to open and run a Aavin Booth within the precincts of the N.R.K.R.Rajarathinam Government Hospital, Sivakasi so as to sell the Aavin Milk and Milk products based on the dealership order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.293/Mkg-Agent/2015 dated 23.06.2015 as this Court passed by this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the respondents No.4 and 6 to allow the petitioner to open and run a Aavin Booth within the precincts of the N.R.K.R.Rajarathinam Government Hospital, Sivakasi so as to sell the Aavin Milk and Milk products based on the dealership order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.293/Mkg-Agent/2015 dated 23.06.2015. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Gover...
M. Soundarapandian Vs. The Management, TANSI Tannery, Vellore District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: W.P.No.38522 of 2003 has been 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 Award in I.D.No.315/1994, dated 27.01.2003, on the file of Labour Court, Vellore, and quash the same, and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant all monetary benefits from 17.03.1971, when the petitioner was wrongfully sent out of job. W.P.No.1149 of 2004 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the Award, dated 27.01.2003, passed by the second respondent, in I.D.No.315/1994, raised by the first respondent, under which the second respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of award till the date of realisation and to quash the same.) 1. The challenge in both these Writ Petitions is to the award passed by the Labour Cou...
D. Anuradha rep. by her Power Agent and Father K. Dwarakanathan Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in respect of impugned notice dated 04.11.2015 bearing number Ma.A.Na.Ka.No.4641/2015 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Mr.R.Arunmozhi, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Questioning the correctness of the notice dated 04 November 2015 issued by the second respondent, whereunder, a direction was issued to the petitioner to remove the encroachment, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the property in question by sale deed dated 27 March 2002 and after obtaining necessary permission, she had constructed a house/shop in the said proper...
R. Murugesan Vs. The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry pending in file Na.Ka.No.A1/1447/2012-Sri dated 31.01.2014 issued by the second respondent and pass other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry pending in file Na.Ka.No.A1/1447/2012-Sri dated 31.01.2014 issued by the second respondent. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court even the alleged document sought for by the respondents has been sent by registered post by the petitioner on 19.03.2016. 3. As the application is pending before the second respondent, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »