Chennai Court September 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.
M. Muthumathesh and Others Vs. The Chairman / Managing Director, TANGE ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD) Nos.18150 and 18151 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2016 for including petitioner's name in the year 2005 seniority list [Assistant Engineer(Electrical) by internal selection under the Most Backward Class Back Log Vacancy] for considering promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Prayer in W.P(MD) No.18152 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2016 for including his name in the year 2005 seniority list (Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by internal selection under the scheduled caste back log vacancy) for considering promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.) 1. These petitions have been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd r...
R. Saratha (Died) and Others Vs. S. Krishnaveni and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to allow the above appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli dated 14.09.2006 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 and to decree the said suit as prayed for.) 1. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Trichy, are the appellants in the above First Appeal. 2. The appellants have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property. The suit property is a house plot measuring an extent of 3,600 square feet in T.S.No.2067 (Old) and New T.S.No.17. 3. The brief facts as set out in the plaint are as follows: 3(a). The suit property belonged to one B.Ramamoorthy Iyer and his brother B.Sundaresa Iyer by virtue of a sale deed dated 01.07.1970. The plaintiffs are the wife and children of B.Ramamoorthy Iyer. Since B.Ramamoorthy Iyer died on 17.01.2002, the plaintiffs, who are the lega...
Mariappan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Pallapatty Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.12 of 2008 dated 19.06.2009.) 1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 19.06.2009 in S.C.No.12 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. 2. It comes to be known that the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.12 of 2008 dated 19.06.2009, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record had ultimately found the Appellant/Accused not guilty under Section 302 IPC. However, the Appellant/Accused was found guilty in respect of an offence under Section 323 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo fur...
A.T. Rajaram Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government Home Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st Respondents proceeding in Government Order (2D) NO. 445, Home (Police VI A) Department, dated 07.12.2011 in so far as to the petitioner the punishment of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect is concerned and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reimburse the monetary benefits due to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has circulated a letter dated 19.09.2016 to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this writ petition. 2. Recording the same, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Rathi Meena Vs. Dr. Amith Khanna
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer:Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2016 from the file of Sub-Court, Kovilpatti and to transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Madurai.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement so made, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
L. Mabel Alphonsa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communications in A.Thi.Mu.No.3796/A2/16 dated 11.08.2016 on the file of the respondent no.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant in the 5th respondent school with effect from the date of appointment on 15.03.2011 with all attendant benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 4th respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.3796/A2/16 dated 11.08.2016 vide which, the 4th respondent has returned the proposal for want of Government Orders. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant in the 5th respondent school with effect from the date of appointment on 15.03.2011 with all attendant benefits. 2. Heard the learned c...
Union of India, Rep. by the Executive Engineer, Chennai Vs. M/s. Conso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.10.2010 made in O.P.No.603 of 2007.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 18.01.2010 made in O.P.No.603 of 2007 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as against the Award passed by the Arbitrator. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) The Union of India, rep. by the Executive Engineer, Chennai Central Division III, CPWD is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the claimant before the Arbitrator. The claimant was entrusted with the work of construction of convention centre for Chennai Trade Centre at Chennai by the appellant under agreement, dated 10.10.2002. The scope of the work consisted of construction of a conventional centre, an administrative block and extension to the existing S...
Sivasubiramaniyampillai Vs. Jothimani and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 164 of 2007 dated 18.08.2008 on the file of the Principal sub-Court, Trichy, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.148 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri, dated 20.01.2007) 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant before this Court. The first respondent in the second appeal, as the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 148 of 2003 for declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.170 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri, is not binding on her with regard to her right over the title in respect of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree in O.S.No.170 of 1998 or taking possession from the enjoyment of the plaintiff's aunt, namely, one P...
Dr. Kudavayil Balasubramanian Vs. The Principal Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 5.1.2016 within a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 5.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Publication Manager in the office of the 3rd respondent and retired from service on 30.06.2006; after his retirement, though pension has been granted, no Dearness Allowance (D.A.) has been given from the date of retirement; the 2nd respondent sent a proposal to the 1st respondent regarding D.A. and Family Pension; that the petitioner requested the respondents 1 and 2 by way of written representation dated 05.01.2016 by register...
K. Nandhini Vs. The Principal Accountant General, Office of the Princi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1366/A1/15 dated 29.09.2015 of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondents herein to forward the petitioner's family pension proposal to the 2nd respondent herein and direct the 1st respondent herein to disburse the death cum terminal benefits of the deceased Mrs.Packiyalakshmi, family pension from the date of death namely 20.02.2010 with all other attended benefits to the petitioner herein.) 1. This Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus has been filed, calling for the records relating to proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1366/A1/15 dated 29.09.2015 of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forward the petitioner's family pension proposal to the 1st respondent herein with a further direction to the 1st respondent h...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »