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.
D. Gowthaman Vs. The Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.6555 of 2007, dated 17.02.2010. ) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner joined as a Marker in the fifth respondent aided school on 05.10.1998. According to him, he has completed 10th Standard, but failed in +2. At the time of his appointment, he was paid a consolidated sum of Rs.125/- per month and further 10% of the amount from the games fund of the school was also given to the Markers, like the appellant/writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner was in service as a Market till March 2000 and thereafter, he was not engaged. 2. The claim of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the School Education Department has passed G.O.Ms.No.527, Education Department, dated 30.12.1997, bringing the Markers working in Government / Municipal / Corporation / Aided Schools in the time scale of pay and by virtue of the said Government Order, very many persons have been accommodated ...
S. Mohamed Abdul Oni Vs. The Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Special Office ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai to dispose of the injunction application in I.A.No.324 of 2014 in O.S.No.147 of 2014, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai to dispose of the injunction application in I.A.No.324 of 2014 in O.S.No.147 of 2014, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.147 of 2014 for declaration and for permanent injunction before the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.324 of 2014 for the relief of interim injunction against the respondent herein. In the said application, notice was given to the respondent on 25.06.2014. Thereafter, on 17.10.2014, the learned counsel appeared for the respondent and matter is posted for counter and disposal on 17.2.2015. Thereafter, time and ag...
The President, Puliyampatti Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
M. Sathyanarayanan, J 1. By consent, the Writ Appeal is taken for final disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties in this Writ Appeal are referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner would state that the lands in S.Nos.92/2B1, 92/3B, 90/1B2B, 90/2A1, 91/1B2B and 91/2A1 belongs to her and she was also issued with patta No.704. The petitioner would state that she is carrying on agricultural operations in those lands and therefore, she dug a well to erect pump set in S.No.92/2B1 and applied for electricity service connection for agricultural purposes to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 3. It is also stated by the petitioner that the Village Administrative Officer of Puliyampatti Village, vide communication dated 10.10.2014 has also indicated that there is no borewell within 100 metres of radius adjacent to the lands of the petitioner. 4. The second respondent vide proceedings, dated 16.10.2014, had stated that the application for electricity serv...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. It comes to be known that the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai had addressed a letter in Dis.No.971 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016, to the Registrar General of this Court, inter alia stating that ... on 11.08.2016, written arguments was filed by A2 and also filed a Petition for revoking memo of appearance of counsel and the same was accepted by this Court etc., and ultimately, prayed for one month time being granted to dispose of the case in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 pending on his file. 2. At this stage, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases brings it to the notice of this Court that in C.C.No.8650 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.113 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P233 were marked and on the side of the defence, witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. 3. Considering the fact that the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai-3 had so...
Subbulakshmi and Others Vs. Muthammal and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the decree and judgment dated 27.03.2002 made in A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1998 made in O.S.No.554 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur.) 1. The civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 27.03.2002 made in A.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1998 made in O.S.No.554 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.554 of 1995 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchendur, praying for declaration, to declare that the respondent are having joint right over the 2nd schedule lane and for permanent injunction, restrainin...
All Indian Overseas Bank Employees' Union, Rep. by its President, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court, dated 30.08.2011 made in W.P.No.4319 of 2000.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the orders passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.08.2011 in W.P.No.4319 of 2000. 2. The factual aspects leading to the filing of writ petition in nutshell are as follows : (i) The employee-workman Mr.J.S.Rajkumar joined the service of the Indian Overseas Bank in clerical cadre on 18.11.1968. He had been working in the Nagercoil branch. He was the Secretary of the union and organised strike alleging certain grievances against the Branch Manager. He was served with a charge memo, dated 06.02.1980, alleging certain acts of commission and omission. He was also placed under suspension on 09.02.1980. (ii) The matter was entrusted to the CBI and the CBI, after investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioner in Court of law. He faced the trial and the ...
Vasantham Outdoor Advertising Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner, Ti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.TP4/2819/2008, dated 27.08.2010, on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2, to receive the licence fee of a sum of Rs.1,05,500/- per year.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner accorded licence to put up Hoardings / Advertisement Boards and also installation of Surveillance Camera and the licence is valid till 31.03.2010. Prior to the expiry of licence, the petitioner vide application, dated 09.06.2009, prayed for renewal of the licence and also sought 'No Objection Certificate' from the first respondent and also paid a sum of Rs.1,05,500/-. The petitioner would further state that the officials of the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation had removed many advertisement boards wit...
M. Habeeb Rahman Vs. The State Rep. by its, Additional Chief Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the gratuity and encashment of earn leave to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 18.01.2016 and reminder on 12.05.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to sanction the gratuity and encashment of Earn Leave to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 18.01.2016 and reminder dated 12.05.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that for the occurrence that had taken place in the year 1991, a criminal case was registered in the year 1997 and the department initiated disciplinary proceedings in the year 1993, which was subsequently dropped on 22.02.2007; that as on date, there is no charge pending against him and he is entitled to Provident Fund, Gratuity and encashment of Earn Leave; that except Provident Fund, other benefits were not sanctioned to him; that he made a r...
Sri Krishnasamy Educational Trust and Another Vs. Jabely Edourad and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 31-01-2008, passed in O.S.No.4 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court-II), Cuddalore.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-01-2008, passed in O.S.No.4 of 2004 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-II), Cuddalore. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 6, as plaintiffs, have instituted O.S.No.4 of 2004 on the file of the Trial Court praying to declare that the sale deeds registered in Registration Nos.478/98, 762/99, 764/99 and 766/99 are void and also for the reliefs of recovery of possession and mesne profits or alternatively for directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen lakhs only) to the plaintiffs wherein the present appellants have been arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3. 3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit property is originally belong to on...
Union of India Represented by The Air Officer Commanding Air Force Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned order in OA 189 of 2011 dated 4.1.2012 and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 4.1.2012 made in O.A.No.189/2011, by which, the Tribunal has directed the writ petitioner, to regularise the services of the second respondent, in the post of Ayah, in Maternity and Child Welfare Centre, and to grant all the benefits applicable to a regularly appointed Ayah, in the said centre. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that, pursuant to publication, the second respondent, applied to the post of Ayah in Maternity and Child Welfare Centre, under the control of the Air Force Commanding, Air Force Station, Sulur, Coimbatore. The petitioner, by call letter dated 26.8.1997, directed the second respondent to appe...