Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
Edwin Dinroze and Others Vs. The Chairman Airports Authority of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order No.AAI/MAD/M/2-6(2)/EM dated 14.03.2002 passed by the third respondent on the authority of the second respondent's letter dated 25.02.2002 and quash the same and to direct the third respondent to maintain separate seniority list, one for Senior Office Assistants already promoted from Junior Office Assistants based on the recruitment rules existing prior to 1969 and other one for Engineering Office Assistants who had been re-designated as Senior Office Assistants in the year 1998 as per their own decision taken in the order No.A 23018/7/96-EM dated 07.08.1996 and to create number of posts of Office Superintendent and to give promotion to the petitioners in the cadre of Office Superintendent and above taking into account their service put in in the Ministerial Line at appropriate time earlier than the staff f...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gunasekari Vs. Mohan, The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent, since the respondent did not obey the Court order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21928 of 2015, dated 1/9/2015.) 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed praying to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.21928 of 2015, dated 1/9/2015. 2. It may be necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts of the case:- The house site in question, viz., Plot No.25, Sri Ranga Nagar, comprised in S.No.28/2, Part Sub-Division Survey No.28/23 of Moulivakkam Village, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, was purchased by Mrs.S.Gunasekari, petitioner herein, by a sale deed, dated 5/6/2000, registered as Document No.2918 of 2000 in Sub-Registrar Office, Kundrathur, from one P.Rama Rao, S/o. Mr.Polla Rao and since then the petitioner was in peaceful enjoyment of the property. Sometime around June July 2015, the petitioner found that some people were ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramasamy (deceased) and Others Vs. K. Palanisamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order of the II Additional District Munsif Court at Erode, dated 27.02.2013 in I.A.No.9 of 2013 in O.S.No.589 of 2010 inter-alia.) 1. The undisputed fact leading to the present civil revision petitions is as detailed below: The Revision petitioners has filed a suit against the respondents herein in O.S.No.589/2010 for the relief of the Plaintiff s title to their undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property and cancellation of sale dated 09.09.1999 and 13.03.2010 as null and void. The petitioners herein stated that the suit property belonged to the 1st petitioner s father namely Chenni Mooppan. The said Chenni Mooppan, the father of the 1st plaintiff and one Marimuthu, who is the father of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit. The said Chenni Mooppan had mortgaged his property, under the registered mortgage deed dated 22.08.1979, in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sugumaran Vs. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.11.2010 read with the modification order dated 08.11.2011 made in W.P.No.5260 of 2006.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The appellant was an employee of the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited / first respondent. He was working as clerk in the Coonoor Branch of the Transport Corporation. His duty was disbursement of wages to the employees of the Branch and to maintain accounts for the disbursement of wages. One Devanesan, a driver of the Corporation made a representation that his salary for the month of December 1996 was not paid. However, the signature purporting to be that of the driver was found in the acquittance register. But the worker denied having signed the acquittance register. 2. A preliminary enquiry was conducted. The said driver and the appellant were examined. The specimen signature of the said driver was collected for comparison by Handwritin...
Tag this Judgment!P. Arockiasamy Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent proceeding in Na.Ka.No.05/Se.Mu.Kaa.Thu.Ka.Ku/2017 dated 23.01.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to perform cultural programme of ''Orchestral Music'' to be conducted on 29.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. to 02.00 a.m. in connection with the ''St.Antony Feast Festival'' of St.Antony Church'' at Karuthapillaiyur, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.05/Se.Mu.Kaa.Thu.Ka.Ku/2017, dated 23.01.2017, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to perform cultural...
Tag this Judgment!Deepika K. Vs. Janaki Viswanathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order II Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit had been filed for declaration that the sale deed executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 3rd Defendant, dated 18.11.2004, registered as Document No.2695 of 2004, in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Adyar, Chennai, is null and void and for division of the suit property, by metes and bounds and for allotment of 1/6th share to the Plaintiff and for costs. 2. The suit had been filed with respect to the property, being land and building, at Door No.3 (Old Door No.2), Kamaraj Avenue, First Street, Adyar, Chennai-20, measuring about 1500 sq.ft. and 1000 sq.ft. out of 1500 sq.ft of land and 900 sq.ft. out of 1350 sq.ft. of constructed portion in the ground floor and first floor. 3. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant was the daughter in law of the 1st Defendant. In effe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwaran and Another Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, to accept the surrender and consider the bail application to be filed the petitioner, on the same day on merits in Crime No.15 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruneveli, to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the same day in connection with Crime No.15 of 2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent police. A case has been registered against the petitioners, who are juveniles, under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 355, 323 and 506(ii) IPC read with Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. When a specific question was posed as...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sundararajan and Others Vs. The Management of Sri Balaji Cotton Mil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer in .WP.No.10262/2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records relating to Claim Petition No.198 of 1999 dated 21.10.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent management to pay the petitioner backwages and other attendant benefits from the date of illegal termination together with interest at 12@ p.a., award costs. Prayer in .WP.No.10263/2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records relating to Claim Petition No.485 of 2000 dated 21.10.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent management to pay the petitioner backwages and other attendant benefits from the date of illegal termination together with interest at 12@ p.a. award costs. in .WP.No.10268/2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, pra...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaguru Vs. State rep. by its the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar by allowing this Criminal Original Petition and to permit the petitioner/accused to recall P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 for the purpose of cross examination.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused to recall P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 for cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has failed to cross-examine those witnesses when they were examined in chief and unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Kaivalyasamy Vs. K.T. Shanmugasundaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2010 made in A.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 made in O.S.No.583 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.) 1. The plaintiff, in this second appeal, has impugned the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2010 made in A.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 made in O.S.No.583 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal. "Whether the courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit in the absence of any other legal evidence to deny the title of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »