Chennai Court October 2015 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.
Veeramani Vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in S.S.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to call for the records in S.S.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same. 2. Since the petitioner has not appeared before the Court, NBW has been issued. Now, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for quashing the same. In order to drag on the proceedings, without appearing before the Court, the petitioner has filed this petition. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
The Principal Secretary, HR and CE Department, Chennai and Others Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeal (MD).Nos.368 and 300 of 2014 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.12139 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Second Appeal (MD).No.189 of 2014 filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in Appeal Suit No.12 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 in Original Suit No.73 of 2009 on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai.) G. Chockalingam, J. 1. Though the vacate stay petition in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014 is listed for disposal, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014 itself is taken up for final disposal, along with W.A.(MD).No.300 of 2014 and S.A.(MD).189 of 2014. 2. Aggrieved by the learned single Judge's order dated 12.11.2013 passed in W.P.(MD).No.12139 o...
Union of India, represented by the Chief Postmaster General and Others ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in O.A.No.1490 of 2010, dated 11.07.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order made in O.A.No.1490 of 2010, dated 11.07.2012, wherein, directions have been issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, to the writ petitioners, to regularise the services of the first respondent, as Postman, from the date of his initial appointment, with protection of seniority, on par with his juniors, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Facts, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition from the material on record and the impugned order are, that the father of the first respondent, a Postman in Valayapatti Sub-Post Office, retired from service on medical grounds on 07.l1.1996. First respondent, son, applied for employment as Postman on compassionate grounds. He could not be provided employment assistance, as per DOPand...
M/s. Kannan Stores, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District Vs. The Commission ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to return the cheques bearing Nos.352081, 001049 and 001050 dated 01.10.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Pattukkottai Branch, for a sum of Rs.6,33,054/-, Rs.4,60,821/- and Rs.3,17,684/- respectively to the petitioner forthwith.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to return the cheques bearing Nos.352081, 001049 and 001050 dated 01.10.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Pattukkottai Branch, for a sum of Rs.6,33,054/-, Rs.4,60,821/- and Rs.3,17,684/- respectively to the petitioner forthwith. 2. It is averred in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the at the time of inspection, the Enforcement Wing Officials had collected three cheques from the petitioner, the cheques bearing Nos.352081, 001049 and 001050 dated 01.10.2015 drawn on State Bank of India,...
P. Dhanalakshmi Vs. State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Dindig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the first respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.608 of 2012 from the file of the second respondent police to any other unbiased investigation officer and investigate the same expeditiously and lay a final report based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2014.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the first respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.608 of 2012 from the file of the second respondent police to any other unbiased investigation officer and investigate the same expeditiously and lay a final report based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2014. 2. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) stating that already the investigation is over and the case has been closed as ' Mistake of Fact' and Referred Charge Sheet has been filed on 22.09.2013....
PVP Ventures Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These writ appeals arise out of the dismissal of two writ petitions filed by the appellant, questioning a show cause notice dated 12.1.2015 and an order of assessment dated 20.1.2015 passed after reopening of assessment. 2. We have heard Mr. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pramodkumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant/assessee filed a Return of Income on 30.9.2008 declaring a loss of Rs.14,07,72,863/-. Later they filed a Revised Return of Income on 26.3.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.17,47,251/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) was issued. 4. Six specific issues were taken up in the course of scrutiny proceedings. One of them related to income from purported sale of land. The assessee had declared an income of Rs.14,31,19,916/- as Short Term Capital Gain on sale of land. Since Fixed Assets Schedule of the company for the relevant previous year did...
S. Senthilkumar Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.4600/11/A6 dated 17.4.2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 17.4.2012, by which a sub division had been made, with regard to the lands in question and the patta, which had been issued in the name of the petitioner, had also been cancelled, without issuing a notice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 17.4.2012, and remit the matter back to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the third respondent and the other persons concerned,...
A. Kailasam Vs. P. Muthuraman and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2008 in A.S. No. 74 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Salem, partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007 made in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur.) 1. The plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance of the execution of sale deed, has projected the instant second Appeal inveighing the judgement and decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Salem, in A.S. No. 74 of 2007 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007 recorded in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mettur, were reversed in part allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the second defendant. 2. The admitted facts are that the suit property belonged to the second defendant, who executed Ex. A.2, General Power of Attorney dated 11.9.2002 in favour of the first defendant....
Kamala Vijayakumari and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by i ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No. 38010/Tho.Ka1(2)/2013-1 dated 09.01.2014 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.NO. 5005/A5/2014 dated 17.07.2014 served to the petitioner through the 4th respondent on 21.07.2014 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to relax the maximum age limit in terms of Rule 12(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.) 1. This writ petition is listed today under the caption for withdrawal on the basis of letter of requisition given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the Registry. 2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
B. Indira and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government Labour and Employ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayers: W.P.No.12396 of 2012: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer. W.P.No.12362 of 2012: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to implement the selection process in terms of earlier regulations in relevance to the vacancies available during 2007 in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.54, Enviornment and Forest Department dated 20.5.1988 for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the respondents undertaking following Hon'ble Apex Court.) Common Order 1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 3. The present ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »