Chennai Court July 2016 Judgments
S. Siluvai Gnanamani Vs. The District Collector and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to issue a fresh Patta Pass-Book in favour of the Petitioner to his property bearing S.No.136-A/7, situated at Iraipuvari Village, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District measuring an extent of 37 cents on the basis of his representation dated 25.6.2016 after making necessary changes in the A Register.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is in absolute possession of the landed property bearing S.No.136A/7, measuring an extent 0.15.00 hectares equivalent to 37 cents, situated at Iraipuvari Village, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 5. It appears that the Petitioner is in need of a patta for the above said property, which he was in absolute possession since 16.10.2015 in his favour,...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar and Another Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, T.Puzhur Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in S.C.No.10 of 2013 dated 22.12.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.87 of 2016 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.16 of 2016 is the second accused in S.C.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. They stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 22.12.2015, the trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to under simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1.The deceased in this case was one Bee...
Tag this Judgment!Durairasan Vs. D. Kuppuswamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:-This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi made in A.S.No.12 of 2013 dated 01.11.2014 thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi made in O.S.No.155 of 2011 dated 27.02.2013.) 1. The appellant is the plaintiff. The first respondent herein is the first defendant who is none else than the father of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants are Government officials. The appellant as the plaintiff filed the suit to declare the settlement revocation deed dated 23.08.2011 executed by the first defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from registering the name transfer on the basis of the said revocation deed. 2. The trial court decreed the suit in so far as the relief seeking for declaration is concerned and however, rejected the relief of injunction sought against the defendants 2 and 3 as not n...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Chenniappan Vs. Minor Rikthu Anupama and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 10.3.2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This appeal suit has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th March, 2008 passed in Original Suit No.5 of 2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted Original Suit No.5 of 2005 on the file of the trial court praying to pass a preliminary decree of partition in respect of her share in the suit properties, wherein the present appellant and the remaining respondents have been arrayed as defendants. 3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit item Nos.1 and 2 have been purchased by one Rasa Gounder, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 17.8.1921 and after his demise, his two sons, viz., Kaliappa G...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Ramu Trading Company Vs. The Assistant Commissioner CT, Sathy Roa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(prayer: Petition Under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST 688025/1994-95/A3 (R.O.C.No.1138/2005/A3) dated 22.9.2015 and quash the same as being issued without jurisdiction and authority of law and issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation of five years. 1. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was a manufacturer in ground nut oil and oil cakes, registered on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. The order impugned in this writ petition is only a notice dated 22.9.2015. Under normal circumstances, a Writ Court will not interfere with any notice where the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to submit their objections. But, the facts of the case are so shocking that this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned notice. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nava Pichaiya Samuvel Vs. S. Jayanthimary
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer :Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai to try along with G.W.O.P.No.24 of 2015.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter has been settled amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench. 2. A perusal of the report of the Mediation Centre would show that the matter has been settled amicably based on the compromise memo dated 22.07.2016. 3. Recording the same, this petition is closed. No costs. The memo of compromise shall form part and parcel of the decree. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Duraisamy Vs. The Revenue Divisional officer, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned notification in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/3026/2015, dated 5.7.2016 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and further to direct the first respondent to issue fresh notification to auction for cutting and removing the veli Karuvai trees situated in S.No.175, North Group, Thamaraki, Sivagangai District on area basis.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. In view of the averments made by the First Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai at Para 9 of the Counter to the following effect: ''9.It is respectfully submitted that the averment of the Petitioner herein in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 as well as the Grounds paragraphs (I) to (vi) are repetitious, imaginary and devoid of truth, as it has been clearly stated in the Notification that the successful bidder can cut and re...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manimaran Vs. The Joint Director of School Education and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 15.06.2016 requesting the 1st respondent to regularize the petitioner service and to pay time scale of pay who was appointed as Vocational Teacher in the 3rd respondent school on 28.06.2000 and working there for the past 16 years on temporary basis.) 1. Mr.S.Manimaran, was appointed as Vocational Instructor in the third respondent Government Higher Secondary School. The said appointment was made through Parent Teachers Association. Several persons appointed through vocational teachers association were regularised. Although the petitioner has put in more than 16 long years of service in the third respondent School, till date, he has not been regularised and representation sent in this regard did not evoke any response. Subsequently, even though the petitioner was called for certificate verificatio...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishna Pandian Vs. K.S. Bharath Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: C.R.P.(NPD).No.4781 of 2014 filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the order and decreetal order dated 24.07.2014 made in R.C.A.No.451 of 2010 on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 21.04.2010 passed in R.C.O.P.No.488 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller), Chennai. C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2007 and 2008 of 2015 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 made in M.P.Nos.463 and 465 of 2012 in R.C.A.No.451 of 2010 on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai.) Common Order 1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4781 of 2014 arises against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.451 of 2010 on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes (Ren...
Tag this Judgment!Pethakkal Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to stop the illegal functioning of the brick kiln run by the 8th respondent in R.S.No.572/3B19A in Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. To Avoid an avoidable delay, Notice to the Eighth Respondent is dispensed with. 3. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 5. According to the Petitioner, her representation, dated 31.05.2016, addressed to Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, praying for stopping of unlawful construction of brick kiln chamber, considering the fact that the lives of Petitioner and the health must be protected, till date is not yet disposed of by them. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court for passing of necessary orders. 6. The grievance of the Petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »