Chennai Court June 2016 Judgments
R. Natarajan Vs. M. Jayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.8687 of 2014 in I.A.No.9601 of 2013 in O.S.No.1462 of 2011 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.8687 of 2014 in I.A.No.9601 of 2013 in O.S.No.1462 of 2011 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the 2nd defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1462 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Since the 2nd defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed in the suit on 27.07.2012. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.9601 of 2012 to condone the delay of 322 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 27.07.2012. The respondent/plaintiff filed his counter and was co...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jegajothi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Ed ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 03.09.2009, made in W.P.(MD)No.2950 of 2005.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This is a classic case of victimization of a Headmistress, stated to be a spinster, on account of her refusal to comply with the direction of the Management of National Girls Higher Secondary School, Rasipuram, Salem, to promote the children of two influential persons. Even at the age of 74 and 16 years after retirement, this elderly person is still wandering in the corridors of this Court fighting against the mighty State and a highly influential Management of a private School. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The appellant was initially appointed as B.T. Assistant in Nadar Saraswathi Girls High School, Theni, on 05 June, 1963. Subsequently, she joined National Girls Higher Secondary School, as Headmistress on 05 June, 1967. It is the case of the appellant that she refused to promote two girl students who are the wards of two highly ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Nagarajan Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to admit petitioner's son namely N.Ramprasath into 10th standard of M.G.Public School, Devipattinam Road, Ramanathapuram, Ramanthapuram District, the 3rd respondent herein, within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the typed set of papers of the writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!S. Ayyathurai Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned auction notice for fishery rights in K.No.Ko.29/E.Po./Karupanadhi/dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 6th respondent in sofar as the Miscellaneous Properties 11, 12 , 13 and 15 are concerned and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the auction slated on 27.06.2016 at 12.00 noon was not held and it was postponed indefinitely. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that on 20.06.2016 in W.P.(MD).No.10807 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, this Court had directed the fourth respondent/Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Chittar Basin Division, Tenkasi, Kutralam to look into the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.06.2016, within 5 days from the date of receipt of ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Soundarrajan Vs. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, Villupuram Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in S.C.No.226 of 2010, dated 18.02.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.226 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. He stood charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 18.02.2013, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs.Kumudham. The accused is her husband. The marriage between them was celebrated in the year 2002. Out of the said wedlock, they got three children. The accused, later on, beca...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to stay all further proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, until receiving result of DNA test conducting between the petitioner and the de facto complainant's daughter as ordered by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in C.M.P.No.796 of 2016 dated 16.12.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to stay all further proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Salem, until receipt of DNA test result. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is seen that this petitioner is facing prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2015 for offences under Section 6 r/w 5[1][J][2] of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 376[2] of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had se...
Tag this Judgment!T. Palanisamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluka
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to cancel the Patta Nos. 905 and 458 granted in the name of 2nd Respondent in respect of the property of 5 Acres 13 Cents bearing in Survey No. 33/3, 33/3, 34/2, 34/5, 34/9, 34/3 and 34/10 Kombai Village , Vengadathanur Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District, by considering petitioner's representation dated 16.4.2016.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 27.06.2016, to the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid letter, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!A. Gunasekaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to give permission to conduct Cricket Tournament on 03.07.2016, 10.07.2016, 17.07.2016, 24.07.2016 and 31.07.2016 (Sundays) during the celebration of 7th Anniversary of Karisaloor Cricket Club between 9am to 5pm in the petitioner's village, namely, Karisaloor, Tirunelveli District.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct Cricket Tournament on 03.07.2016, 10.07.2016, 17.07.2016, 24.07.2016 and 31.07.2016 (Sundays) during the celebration of 7th Anniversary of Karisaloor Cricket Club between 9am to 5pm in the petitioner's village, namely, Karisaloor, Tirunelveli District. 2. Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the learned counsel ap...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ravi and Others Vs. Indian Council of Medical Research Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, dated 04.05.2009 relating to O.A.No.820 of 2006 and quash the same and consequently, allow the O.A.No.820 of 2006.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (third respondent), dated 04.05.2009 made in O.A.No.820 of 2006 and quash the same and consequently, allow the O.A.No.820 of 2006. 2. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is as follows : (i) The writ petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Attendant between 1992 and 1999, pursuant to the notification, calling for applications for the said post, whereunder necessary qualification was Matric / SSLC with previous experience in Lab. The petitioners are having the said requisite qualificat...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arumugam Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 23.11.2009 made in I.A.No.1565 of 2008 in O.S.No.400 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam.) O r d e r: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 23.11.2009 made in I.A.No.1565 of 2008 in O.S.No.400 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam. 2. The petitioner/defendant filed a suit in O.S.400 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Palladam, where an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner/defendant on 23.11.2009. The petitioner moved I.A.No.1565 of 2008 to condone the delay of 354 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order, wherein the same was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 23.11.2009. Against the same present revision has been filed. 3. It is admitted fact that the suit filed for recovery of amount based on the alleged promissory note dated 23.10....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »