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.
P. Nagarajan Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Mines ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's representation appeal, dated 10.02.2016 within a time fixed by this Court, besides direct the 1st respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, at the time of disposal of the above appeal, duly permitting the petitioner to produce document to substantiate his stand.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the First Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, his Appeal, dated 10.02.2016, is pending before the First Respondent / Secretary to the Government, Department of Mines and Minerals, Chennai-9. The said Appeal is pending, as on date, and hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent, to pr...
Ramalingam and Another Vs. Selvam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck off the suit filed in O.S.No.115 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur.) 1. The defendants are the civil revision petitioners before this Court filed this petition by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for struck of the suit in O.S.No.115 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur. 2. The case of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are that the first defendant had obtained a loan an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 30.01.2003 for construction of house and for his family expenses from the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.115 of 2011 and executed a promissory note in favour of the second defendant on the said date. Since the first defendant has failed to discharge the loan with interest, the second defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2004, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur for recovery of the amount with interest due on the said suit ...
R. Eswaran Vs. The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayat, Office ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the order passed by the respondent NO.1 in Na.Ka.Va4/3985/2015 dated 21.11.2015 and quash the same as illegal consequently to direct the respondents to appoint me as watchman in Respondent No.1 department after follow the procedure in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 21.11.2015 whereby the incumbents were asked to appear before the first respondent along with necessary Certificates to fill up the post of Watchman. 2. Pursuant to the letter of the first respondent dated 21.11.2015, the petitioner attended the interview on 30.11.2015 along with 17 others. However, subsequently, he came to know that, the respondents have not followed 3% reservation for Arunthathiyar Community as per G.O.Ms.No.142, Employment and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 14.10.2009. In th...
A. Ozanam Johny Vs. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of he appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 against the panel prepared by the second respondent vide Memo No.077681/502/G.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016 as expeditiously within time limit.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 against the panel prepared by the second respondent vide Memo No.077681/502/G.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016. 2. This Court is not able to entertain this writ petition. The reason is, unless there is a case made out to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the statutory authority in doing the particular Act or on the ground that there was a glaring arbitrary exercise of ...
M. Francis Selvaraj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse forthwith the retirement benefits such as Dearness Allowance arrears, Increments from May 2014 and 240 days Earned Leave benefits at the time of retirement (30.06.2014) on the basis of the 12th Pay Settlement. In addition to that the petitioner also entitled to receive 30 days deducted Earned Leave Benefits (for the year November 2010 and June 2011) while he was in service and legally entitled with interest.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents wo...
P. Mariappa Vs. The Secretary, Department of Home (Prison 1), St. Geor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: W.P.MD. No.13910 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned seniority list, dated 04.01.2012 in No.365/CS2/12, published by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to place the petitioner above Respondent Nos.3 to 9. W.P.MD. No.11875 of 2014:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned seniority list of jailors, dated 09.01.2014, published by the 2nd respondent, to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to revise the seniority list of Jailors and place the petitioner above respondent Nos.3 to 9.) Common Order: 1. In a feud between two groups of Jailors, namely, Direct Recruits and Promotees, over fixation of seniority between them, the petitioner herein, who is a p...
Kannappan Vs. Arjunan (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.04.2005 made in A.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur, whereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.01.2004 made in O.S.No.87 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.) 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.04.2005 of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur made in A.S.No.57 of 2004, by which the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, namely, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, dated 27.01.2004 made in O.S.No.87 of 2002 was set aside, so that the suit ended in dismissal. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : (i) Natesa Vanniyar had two sons, namely Murugaiya and Dhakshinamurthy. Natesa Vanniyar had the suit properties through partition effected between him and his brothers. Natesa Vanniyar in his life time executed a Will on 30.07.1957 bequeathi...
Muthuraman Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.1114 of 2016 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.1114 of 2016 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners. 2. On the complaint lodged by one Vivekanandan, the Inspector of Police, J-5 Shastri Nagar Police Station, the respondent herein, registered a case in Crime No.1966 of 2015 and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C. No.1114 of 2016 before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, for offences under Section 416, 420 and 506(I) @ Section 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 120-B and 506(I) IPC against Chidambaram, Deivanai, Muthuraman, Rajagopalan, Shantha, Ravikumar and Rajaraman, c...
Unnamalai Vs. Muniyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 31.03.2011 made in I.A.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.57 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram.) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 31.03.2011 made in I.A.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.57 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram, seeking the relief of specific performance. The petitioner had a knowledge, only after service of notice in the execution petition. The petitioner came to know that the suit has been decreed exparte on 21.11.2009 on the basis of substituted service. But, the same was filed only on 28.04.2010. Though the petitioner had knowledge only after service of notice in exe...
Parath @ Parath Padmanaban and Others Vs. The State, Rep. by The Inspe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.146 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.146 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 324 IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. The allegations in the complaint is that when the defacto complainant went to a medical shop, due to previous enmity, the petitioners herein intercepted him and assaulted him, which resulted in registration of the case in Crime No.146 of 2016. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearin...