Chennai Court February 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.
D. Thangapandi and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Pri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: in W.P.(MD) No.16217 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.04.2015 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.2 to allot 51 Fruit Shops to the petitioners at the newly constructed wholesale fruit market near Mattuthavani, Madurai, by following a fair method of allotment within the time period stipulated by this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.22960 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ma.Va.3/037969/16 dated 02.11.2016 delivered on 24.11.2016 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same asillegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.2 to a...
C. Mani Vs. P.R. Sadhasivam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer : Appeal filed Under Section 100 C.P.C. To set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.119 of 2006 dated 01.10.2007 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, Erode District reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1436 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode dated 02.08.2006 and to allow this second appeal.) 1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court which has partly modified the trial Court judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case is as under: 3. The plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Survey No.56/1, and the defendants are the land owners of the land located on the Northern side of the plaintiff land. The defendants land is 6 feet lower to that of the plaintiff's land. While so, the plaintiff who are irrigating their land through lower Bhavani Irrigation Project have the right to drain the excess water through the defendants land. It is essential as...
AMD Housing Developers Rep. By its Managing Partner Mr. H. Ansar Ali, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to dispose of I.A.No.1662 of 2016 in S.A.No.578 of 2016, pending on the file of the fourth respondent as an early date by advancing the first hearing date namely 21/2/2017 or before the proposed date of public auction scheduled to be held on 17th February 2017 or to be held on any other subsequent date. S. Manikumar, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed, to direct the fourth respondent, to dispose of I.A.No.1662 of 2016 in S.A.No.578 of 2016, pending on the file of the fourth respondent, at an early date by advancing the first hearing date, namely, 21/2/2017 or before the proposed date of public auction scheduled to be held on 17th February 2017 or to be held on any other subsequent date. 2. In as much as the petitioner has sought for a direction for an early hearing and disposal of I.A.No.1662 of 2016 in S.A.No.578 of 2016, pending...
R.K. Jayanthi Vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: 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 impugned provisional select list of candidates after certificate verification issued by the first respondent through its official website on 25.02.2015 and to quash the same in so far as the inclusion of name of the third respondent is concerned and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to select and appoint the petitioner (14PG06300128) to the post of PG Assistant (Botany) in the vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Women Category (SCAW).) 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the provisional select list of candidates published by the first respondent after completion of certificate verification in so far as it relates to the selection of the third respondent to the post of PG Assistant (Botany) in the vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Women Category (SCAW) and to appoint the petitioner to ...
P. Saraswathy (Died) and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The petitioner (since deceased) claims to be the owner of Plot No. 108, Door No. 13, North Avenue, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-15 - T.S. No. 12/12, Block No. 4, Venkatarapuram, Adyar Village in pursuance to the registered sale deeds dated 29.11.1998 and 15.04.1999 read with the enjoyment Certificate dated 13.02.2001. Sale deeds have been executed by one Mr. K. Kannappan. The deceased first petitioner obtained planning permission on 15.12.2000 and carried out the construction thereon. 2. A show cause notice dated 01.10.2003 was issued to the deceased first petitioner seeking to cancel the planning permission and the building permit in respect of the property in question predicated on the prima facie view that the vendor of the deceased first petitioner, Mr. K. Kannappan did not have title or enjoyment over the property and thus, the documents produced for obtaining the planning permission lack legal sanctity, as no title was conveyed to the deceased f...
Vallinayaki Vs. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Service, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent through his proceedings in Ref.No.4134/A2/2/2016 dated 14.12.2016 quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to issue pension and all retirement benefits to the petitioner.) 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent through his proceedings in Ref.No. 4134/A2/2/2016 dated 14.12.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue pension and all retirement benefits to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she served as a Staff Nurse in Thiruvaiyaru Government Hospital, Thanjavur, from 24.05.1991 to 06.06.2004 and thereafter she submitted a resignation letter and the same was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation ...
P. Natarajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep by District Collector, Erode a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2004 made in A.S.No.49 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2003 made in O.S.No.138 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.) 1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, by dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein stating that his father Ponnusamy was not heard for more than seven years and therefore to declare him presumed to a dead person as contemplated in Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one independent witness Manian was examined as P.W.2 and the paper publication was marked as Ex.A.1. The Courts below dis-believed the same and refused to grant the relief as the plaintiff not examined his mother and sister to substantiate his claim. The first appellate Co...
G. Lingaraja Vs. The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the original impugned order in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016 passed by the respondent and to quash the same as illegal, within the time contemplated in the provision of law, without delay.) Order: 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner to revoke the suspension, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Senior Grade Conductor at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai) Limited in Sivakasi Branch, the Petitioner was temporarily suspended from service on 11.12.2016, for misappropriation of Corporation fund to the tune of Rs.250/- by re-is...
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., (HSBC), Chennai Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 (C) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 to reject the plaint in C.S.No.786 of 2011.) 1. The 1st defendant in C.S.No.786 of 2011 has taken out this application seeking to reject the plaint in the above suit. 2. The case of the applicant/original 1st defendant Bank is that it has advanced a loan to M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd (In short "STSL"), the second respondent herein. The 1st respondent/ original plaintiff is a Guarantor to the applicant Bank in respect of dues payable by the STSL. As there was a default in paying the loan amount, the applicant/original 1st defendant Bank has filed an application in O.A.No.176 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of a sum of Rs.98,47,12,513/- . The 1st respondent/ original plaintiff has also filed a written statement before the DRT contending that the said guarantee is unenforceable. Besides he has als...
K. Neelamegam Vs. S. Chandra and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 03.03.1998 and passed in A.S.No.149 of 1996 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge, XI Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, dated 27.07.1994 and passed in O.S.No.1866 of 1985.) 1. This second appeal arises from the suit for specific performance. The third defendant, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, pending suit, is the appellant herein. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, whereas the first appellate Court reversed the trial Court judgment and allowed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suit. 3. On 15.09.1984,Tmt.Chandra,the plaintiff in the suit entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property t...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »