Chennai Madurai Court July 2016 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/s. T.M.J. Textile and Readymades, Rep. by its Proprietor M. Jeyaraja ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TIN 33275881926/2014-15 of the respondent dated 14.8.2015 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording a opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 22(4) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act 2006.) 1. The Writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after the assessment order was passed on 14.08.2015, the respondent has subsequently passed a distraint notice dated 08.03.2016 stating that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.2,53,705/- towards tax amount and penalty to the tune of Rs.3,80,705/-, totalling a sum of Rs.6,34,262/-. It is further stated that out of the said amount the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.11,234/...
S. Muthalagu Vs. The Tahsildar, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.3.2016 submitted for demarcation of the property comprised in Pula No.298/4, situated at Thiruvalluvar Group, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District in the light of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2009 and the Commissioner's report, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, in order to demarcate the property referred to above, he made a representation, dated 24.3.2016 to the Respondent requesting him to demarcate the property in question and also to carry out necessary amendment in the FMB in the light of the decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2009 and the Commissioner's report. 5. In f...
M.A. Ameerudeen Vs. The District Collector, Ex-officio President, Indi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to Notice of Election dated 03.07.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the conduct of election Tirunelveli Branch, Indian Red Cross Society and quash the same and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct election in accordance with the uniform rules of the Indian Red Cross Society with an observer to be deputed by 3rd respondent to supervise the conduct of the election.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Temporary Chairman, Indian Red Cross Society, Tirunelveli that the notice of election dated 03.07.2016, issued by the second respondent was revoked, as per proceedings bearing Letter No.A5/2273/2016, dated 16.07.2016. 2. As such, the present writ petition, in the considered opinion, has become an infructuous one. 3. Recording the said proceedings of the ...
V. Nagappan and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: W.P.(MD).Nos.12695 and 12696 of 2016: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the respondents in computing the gratuity, Leave salary payable to the petitioners by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on their basic pay plus grade pay at the rate of 90% instead of 100% as illegal and contrary to G.O.(MS) No.55, Transport (D) Department dated 04.06.2014 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently direct the respondent to compute and pay them the difference amount in Gratuity, Leave Salary by taking into account revised rate of dearness allowance I.e.at the rate of 100% of pay + Grade Pay as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.55 Transport (D) Department dated 04.06.2014.) 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petition...
Shiyamaladevi Vs. The Commissioner cum Director, Animal Husbandry Medi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3217/Aa/2010 dated 03/02/2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same consequently directing the respondent to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioners husband E.Govindan who was working as a Inspector Animal Husbandry Department to the proceedings in O.Mu.No.62631/GG2/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
P.M. Namachivayam Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Tran ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement gratuity of Rs.3,71,341/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e.on 28.02.2013) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Addit...
Kunjammal Vs. The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukkottai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to transfer the patta in the Petitioner's name from the name of the Petitioner's deceased husband Chinnachamy in respect of the property based on the Petitioner's application dated 2.5.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 2.5.2016 before the Respondent, The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District seeking transfer of patta in her name from that of her deceased husband's name Chinnachamy. It appears that the said representation is pending for consideration in the hands of the Respondent. Till date, the same is not yet disposed of. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for by the Writ Pe...
S. Kaleeswaran Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner in view of representation dated 04.07.2016.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obta...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having given clean chit against the charges impugned in the present Writ Petition on 27.09.2011, once again, the very same charge memo has been issued on the same set of allegation. Hence, he prayed for staying of the impugned order. 2. A reading of the proceedings dated 22.06.2016 issued by the second respondent bearing file No.47297/2010/H2 shows that the petitioner was subjected to the departmental proceedings for the same identical similar charges, in an earlier occasion also. Finally, the second respondent applying G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 16.07.1993 has dismissed all the charges levelled against the petitioner 'as not proved'. 3. prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has been again issued with the very same charge memo, to which, already clean chit has been given by the respondents. 4. In view of the above, notice through Court as well privately returnable by 22.08.2016. In the meanwhile, there shall be an order of...
Mandeep Singah Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to condone the absence of the petitioner before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai on 01.06.2016, as per the order dated 22.12.2008 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2008 in C.A.No.205 of 2008.) 1. As against the dismissal of petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., to condone his absence on 01.06.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.1337 of 2016 in C.C.No.9 of 2005 on the file of learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai, this petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the accused. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of reasons beyond his control, the petitioner could not present himself on the said hearing date and he has filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., to condone his absence. As the trial Court could not overtake the directions of this Court it has dismissed the petition. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases submitted that...