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. Manoharan Vs. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.30152 of 2011, dated 02.11.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Mr.A.P.Baskar, 3rd respondent herein, then Assistant Executive Engineer, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, filed W.P.No.30152 of 2011, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash G.O.2D No.113, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MEIII) Department dated 01.12.2011, issued by the Secretary to Government, MAandWS (MEIII) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, and the proceedings of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, in Roc.No.28388/2011/F1 dated 16.12.2011 and consequently, to direct 2nd respondent to promote him notionally, as Assistant Executive Engineer from 20.12.2011, the date on which, the appellant joined as Assistant Executive Engineer, with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The 3rd respondent joined the service as Assistant Engineer, by...
S. Yuvaraj Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-03-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to trace, measure and regulate the water course to the Petitioner's property comprised in S.No.204/15, 16-B of Chinnapulanpatti Village, which runs through S.No.204/7A,6,2 and 9 of the same village and may include such water course in the FMB Sketch and register meant for S.No.204 of Chinnapulanpatti Village, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. By letter, dated 19.07.2010, the second respondent had informed the Petitioner that there exists a water course on the eastern side of his property comprised in S.Nos. 204/15, 16-B of Chinnapulanpatti Village. 2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the said water course was not traceable and hence, he had given a representation on 12.8.2016 to the second respondent requesting him to trace and measure the water course in S.Nos. S.Nos. 204/15, 16-B of Chinnapulanpat...
Rukmani and Others Vs. G. Natarajan (died) and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2017
Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court at Coimbatore dated 09.07.2007 in A.S.No.45 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore dated 13.07.2006 in O.S.No.190 of 1984. 1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below allowing the suit for recovery of rental arrears, damages for use and occupation and recovery of vacant possession of the suit property. 2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the suit. 3.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's mother let out the suit premises to one Rangiammal for rent and after the demise of Rangiammal, her daughter-in-law and grandson, who are the first and second defendants respectively continued to be in possession of the suit property as tena...
R. Angayarkani and Another Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the order of the 4th respondent made in O.A.No.1246 of 2013, dated 26.09.2016, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb/regularise the services of the petitioner, in anyone of the posts of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Law, in the 2nd respondent College and to extend all benefits forthwith thereto.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. As facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of, by a common order. 2. In November 2008, pursuant to the selection process undertaken, the petitioners have been appointed as Lectures in Law, on contract basis. Initially, they were engaged on consolidated pay of Rs.10,000/-, which was subsequently, in the year 2011, enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Lateron, vide order, dated 19.05.2015, they were granted regular scale of pay....
Arumugam Vs. K.S. Sampath Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment made in C.A.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 03.07.2013 reversing the Judgment made in STC No.89 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore dated 20.07.2012 and convict the Accused.) The Appellant / Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 03.07.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2012 passed by the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore while passing the Impugned Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2012 (filed by the Respondent / Accused) on 03.07.2013 at Paragraph No.16 had observed the following: 16. So in this circumstances it is the duty of the complainant to mention the correct particulars, about date, time and place of borrow. So in the absence of such ...
M/s. Osr Infra Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Vs. The Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purpose Act and acquire land to an extent of 50 cents and an extent of 79 cents, or such other portions in Survey Nos.291/2 and 290/2 respectively of Thamaraipadi Village, Dindigul Taluk and District for the purpose of laying the Railway Siding line to the Warehouse for Food Corporation of India at Thamaraipadi Village, Dindigul District.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Though this writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act for the purpose of laying the Railway Siding line to the Warehouse for Food Corporation of India at Thamaraipadi Villag...
Pattusamy Gounder (deceased) and Others Vs. Pushpavathi Ammal and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam in A.S.No.23 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.S.No.1049 of 1992 dated 28.09.2001.) 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession. 2. The parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suit. 3. The facts leading to the second appeal are as follows: The case of the plaintiff is that, he purchased the first item of property mentioned in the 'A' schedule from one Jayammal through sale deed dated 13.02.1974. The second item of the property mentioned in the 'A' schedule is situated on the North of the first item of ...
D. Krishnamoorthy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Prin ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(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 order No.282/Ki.C.U/2016, dated 29.7.2016 passed by the third respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner and sanctioned in the fourth respondent's proceedings dated 1.6.2016 along with interest for gratuity and communication amount at 12% per annum from 1.5.2011 to the date of disbursement within the time limit fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order No.282/Ki.C.U/2016, dated 29.7.2016 passed by the third respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner and sanctioned in the fourth respondent's proceedings dated 1.6.2016 along with inte...
P. Vaidyanathan Vs. K. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.) 1. The plaintiff whose suit for specific performance accompanied by an alternative prayer for refund of advance amount was decreed in part granting the prayer for refund of advance amount alone, that is for a sum of 2,00,000/- only as against the claim of Rs.5,50,000/-, is the appellant. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell his property for a sum of Rs.3,50,000 and a registered agreement was entered into on 12.11.2001. On the date of agreement a sum of Rs.3,00,000 was paid as advance and 15 months time was fixed for payment of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. Just about the time from the period fixed under the agreement was to expire, at the instance of the defendant, a second agreement was entered into on 10.02.2003, wherein the sale ...
Vasantha and Others Vs. Pushpa and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 in A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Chennai, confirming the judgment in O.S.No.7995 of 2006 dated 22.07.2008 on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Court, FTC II, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.7995 of 2006 on the file of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for partition and permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiffs are the daughters of late Thiruvengada Naicker and Varadhammal. Thiruvengada Naicker died leaving behind his wife Varadhammal and sons Kannan, Natesan, Elumalai and Rajendr...