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.
M. Janet, St. Gabriels Girls Higher Secondary School, Pasupathikoil, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 26.4.2016 in O.Mu.No.1285/A3/2016, on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the Petitioner Mrs.Janet, working as Sweeper(part-time) in St.Gabriels Girls Higher Secondary School, Pasupathikoil,Thanajavur District 614 206, w.e.f.1.4.2016 with all monetary and other service benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the fourth respondent,26.4.2016 in O.Mu.No.1285/A3/2016, on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the Petitioner Mrs.Janet, working as Sweeper(part-time) in St.Gabriels Girls Higher Secondary School, Pasupathikoil,Thanajavur District 614 206, w.e.f.1.4.2016 with...
J. Lakshmi Vs. The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or orders or directions in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to pay the Encashment of Leave salary, with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner within a stipulated period.) 1. The petitioner was employed as Selection Grade Record Clerk in the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on 31.05.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. She has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits. 3. The First Bench of this Court in similar matter has passed an order dated 12.06.2015 in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, issuing direction to the transport Corporations to settle the terminal benefits of its employees in equal monthly instalments and to pay 6% interest on the terminal benefits payable to the workman. The Bench has also held that workman is entitled t...
P. Saraswathy Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Theni a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the third respondent to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the post of Headmistress under the third respondent.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
Dr. K.C. Rajaraman Vs. K. Meikandan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
1. The suit is originally filed as a petition for grant of letters of administration. As the respondents 3, 4 and 6 entered as caveators, the petition has been converted as Testamentary Original Suit. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows: The testator Chakrapani Achari, father of the plaintiff herein, executed a Will in the presence of the witnesses on 05.05.1982 and registered the same on 07.05.1982. The petitioner found the Will recently and immediately filed an application and sought grant of letters of administration. 3. The case of the defendants 1 to 3 is as follows: The said Chakrapani Achari had five sons and one daughter and he has treated all his children equally and he never had an idea to bequeath his estate to any of the sons, excluding others. Therefore, the defendants denied the genuineness and validity of the Will. They also denied the testamentary capacity of Chakrapani Achari to execute the Will on 05.05.1982. According to the defendants, Chakrapa...
Suresh and Others Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Jayamk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 (2) Cr.P.C against the judgment in S.C.No.68 of 2013 dated 30.032.2016 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.68 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. They stood charged for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC. By Judgment dated 30.03.2016, the trial Court convicted all the accused under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction, the appellants have come up with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this case was one Anandakrishnan. His wife is Mrs.Rani. The accused 1 and 2 are brothers; the 3rd accused is the sister and the 4th accused is the mother of Mrs.Rani. Mrs. Rani was living with the deceased at Kallathur vil...
The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Railway Line, Vs. S.P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to set aside the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1996, dated 17.02.2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.) 1. The appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2004 is preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1996. The appeal has been filed by the Government. Similarly, the claimant has also filed Cross Objection No.19 of 2006 for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. An extent of 0.06.5 hectares in Survey No.658/2A and an extent of 0.07.0 hectares in Survey No.658/9A in A.Vellode Village, Dindigul Taluk, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming Railway Track. The notification issued under Section 4(1) is dated 09.01.1991. Though the land is classified as a punja land as per the revenue records, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation by adopting capitalization metho...
S. Mariappan Vs. The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,directing the respondents to pay the Gratuity, Encashment of Leave salary, Social Security Scheme Benefits, with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was employed as Selection Grade Senior Driver in the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on 30.11.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. He has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits. 3.The First Bench of this Court in similar matter has passed an order dated 12.06.2015 in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, issuing direction to the transport Corporations to settle the terminal benefits of its employees in equal monthly instalments and to pay 6% interest on the terminal benefits payable to the workman. The Bench has also held that workman is entitled to 18% interest f...
Veerappa Gounder and Others Vs. Dhanabagyam @ Seethalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree on the file of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri @ Krishnagiri in A.S. No.64 of 1997, dated 30.04.2002 in confirming the Judgement and Decree on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.261 of 1977 and 22.04.1997.) 1. This appeal filed by the legal representatives of the first defendant and few other defendants is directed against the concurrent findings of the Court below allowing the suit filed for declaration possession and mesne profit. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- a. The suit was filed by one Nagaraja Manikkar and the legal heirs of Andiyappa Manikkar. They were arrayed as plaintiffs 1 to 9 respectively against T.S.Subbaraya Manikkar and 9 others. Pending suit, the first appeal and the second appeal, many of the original contesting parties died and their legal heirs are arrayed as parties to the lis. b. The suit properties originally ...
P.K. Periyagangai Vs. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent Executive Officer of Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Madurai District alone should lead, organize the festival from the commencement on 10.01.2017 till the end of function on 11.01.2017 without any interference from any unauthorized festival committee.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to lead, organize the festival to be conducted from 10.01.2017 onwards at Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Madurai District, without any interference from any unauthorized festival committee. 2. When the matter was listed for admission on 04.01.2017 (yesterday), the learned Special Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents and sought time to get instructions. Accordingly, today, the matter is listed for further hearing. 3. The grievance...
Pattammal (deceased) and Others Vs. Vimala and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2009 made in O.S.No.431 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.) 1. The defendants in this Second Appeal have impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2009 made in O.S.No.431 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Vinayaga, father of the deceased first plaintiff and Murugesan, father of the deceased first defendant are brothers. Now according to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belonged to Vinayaga and after his death, the suit properties were inherited by the deceased first plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »