Chennai Court July 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.
A. Alwarsamy Vs. Jothi Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kovilpatti
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for wilful and disobedience of the orders of this Court made in W.P(mD)No.17839 of 2014 on 6.11.2014) 1. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Respondent that the request of the Petitioner for change of patta based on Civil Court Degree was rejected by the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. 2. In view of the fact that the Respondent had passed the rejection order dated 13.7.2016, inter-alia stating that the Petitioner had not submitted the proper documents on the date of enquiry I.e., on 2.2.2015 and on 11.7.2016, when the atter was taken up for re-enquiry. 3. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's request was rejected by the Respondent, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to assail the legality,validity and correctness of the order, dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Tal...
A. Soosai Raj Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to hand-over the deposited anount to the Petitioner as a nominee, deposited by the Petitioner's deceased brother Thanislas in S.B.No.10704 and the Fixed Deposit Account Nos.688 and 780 under the second respondent's Co-operative Society and to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 12.3.2016.) 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. Accounting to the Petitioner, his brother Thanislas, son of Antony and his Ambika residing at Kattuvilai, Kanyakumari District, do not have any children. In fact, his brother Thanislas had operated a Savings Account and further, he deposited money in Fixed Deposits in Irenipuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Killiyoor, Killiyoor Post, Kanyakumari District. His brot...
M. Angelin Louisa Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned enquiry report passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Nil dated 20.06.2016 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings R.o.c.No.N2/32356/2015 dated 30.06.2016 (both the impugned order served to the petitioner on 04.07.2016) and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The petitioner herein, who suffered disciplinary proceedings for two counts of charges, submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo, dated 20.02.2015, on 07.04.2016, refuting all the allegations mentioned in the charge memo, but, the Disciplinary Authority, on the premise that the petitioner has suppressed some of the vital information at the time of getting appointment on compassionate grounds, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, submitted his Enquiry Report. Assailing the correctness of the Enquiry Repo...
S. Mallika and Others R. Saravanan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 made in Appeal No.6/2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010 in O.S.No.67 of 2005 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.) 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They lost before both the Courts below in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Their claim is that though they have paid Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale consideration of Rs.4,05,000/- as advance, the Courts below erred in law in rejecting their claim on the reason that they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, especially, when the agreement stipulated three years as the time limit for performance and only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid as the balance sale consideration. The defence taken by the defendants is that the agreement was not intended towards any sale transaction and on the o...
Nagoorkani Vs. Rajaraman and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience in the implementation of the order of this Court made in W.P:(MD)No.17510 of 2014, dated 30.10.2014.) 1. According to the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3, the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17510 of 2014, dated 30.10.2014 was complied with by the Second Respondent by means of proceedings, dated 15.07.2016. 2. It appears that the Second Respondent had stated in his proceedings, dated 15.7.2016, inter-alia to the effect that as per Panchayat Resolution No.26, dated 13.06.2014, the Plan Approval was cancelled and further, in respect of Survey numbers of the proceedings, there are no new constructions and as such, the request of the Petitioner was rejected. 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that this Court's order, dated 30.10.2014, passed in W.P(MD)No.175...
Mani Vs. The District Collector, Theni and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from disturbing the Petitioner's bore-well and Round-well situated at S.No.860/5, Patta No.1658, situated at Megamalai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 27.06.2016.) 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. In view of the fact that the Petitioner in the Writ Petition affidavit at Para 6 had stated that in the year 2011, the State Government conducted the Panchayat election and he and his brother were working in favour of the Opposite Party and for that vengeance, the Second Respondent Village Panchayat President, gave trouble without any proper and valid reason and in this regard, the Petitioner has made a representation to the District Collector and to the Vi...
Chellappan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gandarvak ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special S.C.No.1/2013, dated 25.03.2015 by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai.) 1. The appellant herein was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, in Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2013, for charges under Sections-376 IPC r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. The learned trial Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of the charges under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment; and five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year....
Arunkumar Vs. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., calling for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.2746 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and set aside the 5th condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.2746 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.) 1. The de facto complainant in a criminal case aggrieved by certain portion of the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai in ordering the return of property / vehicle in Crl.M.P.No.2746 of 2016 has directed this revision. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the impugned order and the materials on record. 3. The revision petitioner is the de facto complainant. It is stated already that he has suffered by the criminal act committed by the accused persons, now by certain onerous conditions imposed upon him by the Court, he has to suffer still further. 4. The de facto complainant is the owner cum driver of the TATA India Car TN 58 AL 1191...
Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board rep.by its General Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Judgment: Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the Chennai Metrowater Supply and Sewerage Board is against the order passed in W.P.No.9010 of 2013 dated 7.2.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Board and the learned counsel representing the respondent. 3. Against the decision taken by the appellant/Board in depriving the respondent/writ petitioner of his appointment on compassionate ground stating that he being the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, he is not entitled for such appointment, the respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in H.Anwar Basha v. Registrar General (Incharge), Madras High Court, Chennai and another reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 795 and also the decision rendered by another Division Bench in the case of N.Panneerselvam v. Secretary to Government and others reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 54, quashed the order impugned by directing the Boar...
Ponnaiah Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations of the Petitioner dated 20.6.2016 and 8.7.2016 sent for the purpose of correcting the father's name of the Petitioner as Ponnaiah in the Patta and Chitta in respect of S.No.316/4 measuring an extent of 1 acre 48 cents out of total extent of 2 acre 96 cents(1.20.00 hectares) situated at Ikkaraikosikurichi Village, Kallupatti, Marungapuri Taluk,Trichy District, originally under Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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 the absolute owner of the land in S.No.316/4, measuring an extent of 1 acre and 48 cents, out of total extent of 2 acre and 96 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »