Chennai Madurai Court August 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. Raja Vs. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Madurai) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Salary arrears in terms of settlement form 01.09.2013 to 31.05.2014 Gratuity Leave Salary in terms of the Settlement 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 13.04.2015 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment.)1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment pass...
T. Balasubramanian and Others Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondents to pay the petitioner Rs.6,43,933/- towards Gratuity Rs.2,88,883/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 31.03.14 payable pursuant to new wage settlement dated 13.04.2015 together with 18% interest per annum and further directing the respondents to pay him Rs.2,67,001/- towards the pension Commutation amount and arrears of pension for the period from 01.04.14 by revising pension together with 18% interest per annum, after calculating all terminal/pension benefits based on the monthly wages payable to the petitioner on the months of his retirement i.e., March 2014 by revising the same as per the settlement dated 13.04.2015, as order by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 29.01.2016 in W.A(MD)No.1457 of 2015 and etc., batch. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi...
V. Pandi Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.1,12,862/- towards Leave Salary together with 18% interest per annum and also interest amount towards the delayed payment of Gratuity amount Rs.4,04,991/- for the period from 01.02.12 to 30.12.13 as per Sec.7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and further directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay him interest amount towards the delayed payment of pension Commutation amount Rs.2,22,602/- for the period from 01.02.2012 to 24.10.2013 at the rate of 18% interest per annum, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.) 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 ...
Kesavan Vs. State, rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkovil ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.3264 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi and set aside the order, dated 20.06.2016.) 1. Murder is a serious offence. Sometimes, it will also become a heinous offence. It may be a relevant point while considering the bail plea. But, it may not be a relevant point while considering the return of property petition filed either by the owner or by the accused. 2. The revision petitioner is an accused in Crime No.141 of 2015, registered by Avudaiyarkovil Police, initially under Section 302 I.P.C., and subsequently altered to Sections 120-B, 342, 302 and 201 I.P.C. In the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has seized Discover 125 Motorcycle (TN55 AY9211). It has become a case-property in this case. The accused is stated to be the vehicle owner. 3. The revision petitioner / accused sought for interim custody of the said vehicle by filing ...
George Ashok Vs. The State, through The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying this Court to call for the entire records in the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in Cr.M.P.No.5097 of 2014 in C.C.No.25 of 2013 in Crime No.816 of 2010 dated 2.3.2016 and to set aside the same and to order split up the case in C.C.No.25 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti to conduct a separate trial for the Petitioner.) 1. A5 in C.C.No.25 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition in Cr.M.P.No.5097 of 2014 in C.C.No.25 of 2013 which has been filed to split up his case, has directed this revision. 2. This revision is directed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Court as well as this Court exercised this revisional jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is different from the appellate jurisdiction. ...
T. Lalitha Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release the JCB bearing Registration No.PY-01-AD-2578 which was seized by the Third Respondent without any valid authority on 18.07.2016 at 1.30 a.m. from Verkilambi and stationed in Third Respondent's office within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. According to the Petitioner, his father was doing transport business in the name and style of 'Jesus Lory Service ad Earth Movers' in Poovankodu, Kanyakumari District. His father was doing the said business for the past 20 years and supplying the goods in the entire Kanyakumari District. The petitioner also assist with his father's business. He is having many number of transport vehicles including the JCB vehicle, which ...
K.S. Murugesan Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.2,25,906/- towards Leave Salary together with 18% interest per annum and also interest amount towards the delayed payment of Gratuity amount Rs.3,40,053/- for the period from 01.03.11 to 24.04.12 as per Sec.7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and further directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay him interest amount towards the delayed payment of Pension Commutation amount Rs.2,10,346/- for the period from 01.03.2012 to 24.10.2013 at the rate of 18% interest per annum, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.) 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...
The Principal Sethu Institute of Technology, Pullor, Kariapatti, Virud ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(MD).No.11678 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 made in W.P(MD)No.14360 of 2015.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. 2. The Writ Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
P. Chidambaram Vs. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,(Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Gratuity Earned Leave salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent 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...
A. Ayyavu (Died) Vs. The Statge of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Revenue Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.920 of 2012 as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2015, dismissing the writ petition for issuing a writ of declaration declaring the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed and consequently to declare the orders of the first respondent dated 10.11.2008 and 24.03.2011 as null and void. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. One Andiappan who died in the year 1961 is the owner in respect of certain lands in Survey No.276/2 and the same lands were acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of formation of industrial estates by the State Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) dated 19.11.1963 and a declaration under Section 6 dated 18.12.1963. Since the acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no enquiry was conducted under Section 5A o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »