Chennai Madurai Court September 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.
J. James Clement Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Pudukottai and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the petitioner's driving licence to the petitioner forthwith.) 1. This Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to return the petitioner's driving licence to the petitioner forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., at Pudukottai Region on 01.08.2015 on permanent basis. Now he is working at Alangudi Branch. 4. A case in Crime No.142 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioner on 09.09.2016 under Section 304(A) IPC on the file of Keeramangalam Police Station, on the allegation that due to negligent driving, he caused...
M/s. Danieal and Samuel Logistics Private Limited rep by its Managing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in File C.No.V/ST/15/53/2012-Adjn.No.11/Commr/ST/2016, dated 14.07.2016 and quash the same.) Challenging the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the demand amount of Rs.1,21,42,125/- (service tax Rs.1,17,88,470/-, Primary Education Cess Rs.2,35,770 and Secondary and Higher Education Cess Rs.1,17,885/-) under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non assessing their correct service tax liability in the statutory returns and imposing a penalty of Rs.1,21,42,125/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Admittedly, against the order passed by the first respondent, there is an appeal remedy available before the CESTAT. The appe...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
1. This Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1257 days in filing the above appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 3. The Petitioner has stated in para 4 of the affidavit that he had received notice in E.P.No.1 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007 and the same was received on 4.2.2016 and thereafter only came to know about the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007. Since the Petitioner has not given his temporary address at Kerala, the learned counsel for the Petitioner could not contact his client and therefore he was not attending the Court. Thereafter, the learned counsel could not appear before the Court below due to the Petitioner's absence and failure to contact him, which resulted in passing ex-parte award in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007. Thereafter he received the copy of the judgement on 19.3.2016 and went to Madurai to contact his counsel for filing appeal, on 23.3.2016. After getting instructions and mobilizing funds, the Petitioner has filed the presen...
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by, The Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.1831 of 2007, dated 27.09.2011.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The respondent/writ petitioner made a challenge to the constitutional authority of Explanation V under Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, introduced by the Amendment Act 23 of 2002, to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the State and the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.09.2011, had upheld the said plea and held that the said Explanation is ultra vires the Constitution of India, being beyond the competence of the State Legislature. 2. The appellants/Revenue aggrieved by the said order, had filed this writ appeal. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows: 3.1. The respondent/writ petitioner is in the field of manufacturing, laying, joining, testing and commissioning of PSC pipes, for water supply scheme...
Prakasam and Others Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.63 of 2014 dated 10.07.2015.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in both the appeals are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.63/2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment, dated 10.07.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused under the both the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for offence under Section 341 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in...
Rajesh Mathew Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Depart ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. Applicant is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his request for appointment on compassionate grounds. He states that his father Shri C.G. Mathukutty, an ex-serviceman who lost one leg in combat while serving in the Indian Army after getting relieved from the Army, joined as Postal Assistant in 1973. He died while in service on 12.6.1997 leaving behind his wife and the applicant, his son. The family of the widow consists of the applicant, his wife and two minor children. According to him, though he had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of his father no action was taken by the respondents. The mother of the applicant again submitted an application for compassionate appointment in 1999 a copy of which is produced as Annexure A1. As per the instructions of the officials of the Postal Division, a formal request in the proforma also was submitted vide Annexure A2. Again no steps were taken by the responden...
Kunchammal and Another Vs. M. Jagannathan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent(Relief) Act(38 of 90) r/w Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the finding of the Revenue Divisional Authority, Kumbakonam made in P.T.No.540/92(418/91), dated 30.4.1993 as illegal, erroneous, against law and without jurisdiction.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.9.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioners and hence the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ''for dismissal'' today. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioners. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs....
Priya Vs. Krish
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2015, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani Camp at Kodaikanal and transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed praying this Court to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2015, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani Camp at Kodaikanal and transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. 2. The respondent herein/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Palani Camp at Kodaikanal. The marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24.6.2005 at Oddanchatram according to Hindu rites and customs. Due to difference of opinion, the Petitioner is now residing with her parents at Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District. The allega...
B. Vijayakrishnan Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner Of Lan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent vide Proceedings Ref.K1/17100/2008, dated 10.02.2009, quash the same.) 1. Challenging the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.02.2009, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that an extent of 0.95.0 hectares of Punja land in Survey No.51/2 in Poovanthi Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District originally belonged to the Sivagangai Zamindar Mr.Shanmugaraja and the land was registered as Sivagangai Raja Chatram in settlement A Register. By virtue of an oral assignment by the Sivagangai Zamindar,. the Petitioner grandfather became the owner of the said property and the ownership and title is never disputed by the members belong to the Zamindar family till Petitioner s grandfather s time. However the Petitioner s grandfather had not applied for patta before the Settle...
Santa T.R and Another Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. This Original Application has been filed by two retired Servers in the Catering Department of Southern Railway who were appointed on regular basis while they were working as Commission Bearers in pursuance of the order dated 8.9.1987 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.I. Madhavan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in WP No. 191/1986. During the pendency of this OA the applicant No. 1 died and his wife - the legal representative was substituted as applicant No.1. 2. The pleadings in this OA narrates the details of the 1 st applicant's engagement with the Railways as Substitute Bearer, Substitute Pointsman and Substitute Gangman during different broken spells starting from 15 th January, 1962 to 23.10.1972. Shorn of all the details of such sporadic engagements under the Railway, as matters pertinent to this OA, pleadings of the applicants state that applicant Nos.1 and 2 were working as Commission Bearers on contract basis from 23.3.1973 till 18.10.1979 and from 21.12.1972 to 14.4.197...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »