Chennai Court January 2017 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. Alphonsa Mary and Others Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: in WP.No.1129 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of ceritorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education [C2] Department, dated 15.11.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 15.07.2016 in O.Mu.No.1194/A/2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner based on the Division Bench orders dated 24.08.2016 and made in WA.No.213/2016 and made in WA[MD] No.1019/2013 dated 24.11.2016, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner Mrs.P.Alphonsa Mary, working as B.T. Assistant [Tamil] in St Marys Anglo-Indian Higher Secondary School, 110, Armenian Street, George Town, Chennai 600 001, w.e.f.17.06.2013 with all service benefits. Prayer: in WP.No.1130 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of cer...
R. Idhayakumar Vs. V.V. Panchatcharam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in I.A.No.443 of 2013 in O.S.No.11 of 2013.) 1. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send the suit promissory notes for handwriting expert's opinion. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on the suit promissory notes. The petitioner also filed the written statement. Pending suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.443 of 2013 seeking to send suit promissory notes, which are marked as plaint documents 1 and 2 for the handwriting expert's opinion to compare the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signature containe...
P. Karunamoorthy and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: in W.P.No.1260 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to count the half of service rendered by the petitioner as Social Forestry Worker from 16.11.1984 to 24.01.1995 on temporary basis along with the regular service from 25.01.1995 till the date of retirement on 31.10.2016 as qualifying service for the purpose of conferment of pension and to direct the respondents to send pension proposal to the fourth respondent under the old pension scheme for authorize the same with all consequent benefits within the time frame. Prayer: in W.P.No.1261 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to count the half of service rendered by the petitioner's wife as Social Forestry Worker from 24.08.1983 to 06.08.2009 on temporary basis along with the regular service from 07.08.20...
Margarate @ Manjula Vs. J. Clara Williams and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.113 of 2000 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.) 1. Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.113 of 2000 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suit. 3. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit in O.S.No.113 of 2000 filed for partition seeking 2/3rd share in the suit property for the plaintiffs. 4. Ac...
M/s. Saraswathi Mills Limited represented by its Director N. Shanmugas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent passed in Ni.Mu./P4/18978/2015 dated 23.09.2015 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to remove the entries in "DC Land" maintained in the Village Accounts in S.Nos. 672/1, 672/2, 672/3 and 673 situated at Thanigaipolur Village, Arakkonam Taluk.) 1. The petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent on 23.09.2015 by which the respondent refused to issue patta in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 672/1, 672/2, 672/3 and 673 situate in Thanigaipolour Village, ARakkonam Taluk, Vellore District are recorded as "Panchami lands" (DC). 2. The petitioners would contend that the first petitioner had purchased the lands comprised in Survey No.672/1 measuring 6.48 acres by a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1961 from Balasubramania R...
N. Natarajan Vs. The Joint Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Chari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Commissioner in D.Dis.R.P.No.264/2016 D2 dated 22.12.2016 insofar it relates to the increase of rent from Rs.416/- to Rs.5000/- for the land measuring about 200 sq.ft., and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, HR and CE, (Admn.) Department, Chennai in D.Dis.R.P.No.264/2016 D2 dated 22.12.2016 insofar it relates to the increase of rent from Rs.416/- to Rs.5000/- for the land measuring about 200 sq.ft., and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that he is not questioning the order of the Commissioner dated 22.12.2016 insofar as the grant of lease but he is only aggrieved ov...
Lakshmanan Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 22.07.2005 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.3 of 2005. ) 1. The second accused in Sessions Case No.3 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, is the appellant herein. He stood charged for the offence under Section 395 r/w 397 IPC. Originally, there are six accused in this case. Since A-1 to A-4 were absconding, the trial Court split up the case in S.C.No.3 of 2005 and A-5 and A-6 were faced the trial. The Trial Court, after trial, by Judgment dated 22.07.2005, convicted the accused 1 and 2, under Section 395 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced them to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/second accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The...
M/s. Golden Pipe Company, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Abdul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: in WP(MD)No.737/2017 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TIN 33303565598/2011-12 dated 30.11.2016 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in the case of Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai, reported in [2015] 82 VST 457 and further direct the respondent to afford a opportunity of personal hearing and consider the relevant records and representation dated 27.12.2016 and thereafter to pass order afresh. Prayer: in WP(MD)No.738/2017 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TIN 33303565598/2012-13 dated 30.11.2016 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the judgment of this Honourable Court reported in the case of Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. Assistant Co...
K.S. Palanisamy Vs. Ramasamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 26.07.2011 made in I.A.No.28 of 2010 in A.S.No.10 of 2009, on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari.) 1. The appellant in A.S.No.10 o 2009 is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.28 of 2010, dated 26.07.2011, rejecting the petitioner s request for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 2. The case of the appellant/first defendant is that the first defendant/plaintiff has filed the above suit against this appellant/first defendant and the second respondent/second defendant for permanent injunction and the same was decreed. Against the said decree, this appellant/first defendant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2009 before the learned Sub-Judge, Sankari. 3. While pendency of the above appeal, this appellant/first defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.28 of 2010 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measu...
Pastor Thangamuthu @ John Thangamuthu (Died) and Others Vs. K.K. Gnane ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee in I.A.No.463 of 2012 in O.S.No.37 of 2005, dated 11.03.2013.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2005 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the money suit based on a mortgage deed is being tried by the competent Court, wherein witnesses have been produced on either side and the trial was over. When the case was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed an I.A.No.463 of 2012 for the re-open the evidence on the plaintiff s side in order to examine an attesting witness of the mortgage deed dated 01.11.1993. 3. By reputing the contention of the petition, the respondent filed counter saying that the said application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it was filed belatedly that too after the trial was over. So the same is not entertainable. 4. Considering the averments made in the aff...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »