Chennai Court November 2015 Judgments
M. Sulaiman Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Ramanat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to accept and approve the petitioner's building plan approval application dated 09.06.2015 proposed construction of building in SF.No.24/1B1/A at Enmanamkondan, Uchipuli Post, Ramanathapuram District.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the resolution passed on 09.02.2015 by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous, as the petitioner has challenged the said resolution in6 another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.18778 of 2015. 2. Recording the above-said submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Rathinam Vs. The District Collector/Special Officer, Irrigation Co- ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order made in W.P(MD)No.5996 of 2010 dated 19.11.2010.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. The writ appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Judge dismissing the writ petition on the basis of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court inK.Marappann -vs- The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal -636 001 and another reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 to the effect that writ petition will not lie against Co-Operative Societies. 2. Heard Mr.Murali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 3. The issue raised by the appellant in the writ petition was in respect of the age of the appellant. The appellant was a Watchman. He claimed that as per the Bye-laws the age of retirement was 60 years. 4. The writ petition is of the year 2010. At the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 2010,...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Cheran Cements Limited, rep.by its Director P.kumar Raja, Karur D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the common order, dated 24.03.2015 , made in W.P.(MD)Nos4156 to 4159 and 4189 to 4194 of 2015.) Common Judgment V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These writ appeals are by the assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short "TNGST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short "CST Act"), challenging the dismissal of their writ petitions questioning the rejection of their applications for settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011, (in short "T.N.Act29/2011"). 2. We have heard Mrs.R.Hema Latha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), for the respondents. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and allied products. They are registered as dealers under the TNGST Act and the CST Act. 4. The appellant availed the benefit of ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balasubramanian Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits payable to him with reasonable rate of interest within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner joined service of the fourth respondent Co-operative Society on 21.07.1994. He rendered 24 years of service and retired from service on 31.12.2008 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was allowed to retire. According to him, he is not paid any settlement benefits such as G.P.F. and gratuity payable to him under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Hence, he has filed the writ petition seeking direction to settle the terminal benefits. 2. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that the terminal benefits were not settled due to the paucity of funds and there is no other intention to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. In...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manikand Boopathi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent order dated 09.11.2015 made in Roc.A4/55854/15 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other benefits.) 1. The petitioner is a Revenue Assistant in the Taluk Office at Tirunelveli. On 08.01.2015, based on his complaint F.I.R. in crime No.442 of 2015 was registered on the file of Perumalpuram Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 2. While so, the impugned order is passed referring to the aforesaid F.I.R., placing the petitioner under suspension. Rule 17(2)(e) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is invoked stating that he is deemed to have been suspended. Deeming suspension would come into operation only when a Government servant is arr...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government Highways and Rural Works Dept. and Another ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order, dated 16.9.2014 made in W.P.No.13596 of 2014 on the file of this Court.) Dr. P. Devadass, J. This writ appeal at the instance of the Government respondents arises out of the order of the Writ Court passed in W.P.No.13596 of 2014 on 16.9.2014. 2. In 1961, the respondent joined the State Highways Department as a Supervisor. After several years of service, he became a Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Assistant Divisional Engineer. And he has served in several places. He was due to retire on 31.3.1996. However, on 27.3.1996, in the public interest, he was suspended. On 28.3.1996 Government passed orders not permitting him to retire from service. 3. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police registered a criminal case relating to certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by certain persons in the purchase of various materials by the Highways Department. The respondent has been cited as an accused. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D. Rajamanickam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.729 Health and Family Welfare (D1) Department dated 3.8.2006, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to confer all the terminal benefits including backwages pension etc., to the Petitioner by treating the period of suspension as one of duty.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that he had completed his degree in MBBS in the year 1968, joined the service as Medical Officer in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service in 1968. He has served as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District, formerly in Trichy District. The service of the petitioner has been meritorious throughout. While he was serving as Assistant Surgeon in the Primary Health Centre, Krishnarayapuram, formerly in T...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sulaiman Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to resolution passed in resolution No.627 dated 09.02.2015 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to give permission to grant plan approval and levying house tax in petitioner's land in S.F.No.24/1B1A and patta No.380 at Enmanam Kondan village, Uchipuli Post, Ramanthapuram District within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the resolution passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 09.02.2015 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to give planning approval in respect of the property situated in S.F.No.24/1B1A covered by patta No.380 at Enmanam Kondan village, Uchipuli Post, Ramanthapuram District. 2. In this writ petition, Enmanangondan Muslim Jamath filed impleading petition to implead them as a p...
Tag this Judgment!A. Seenivasagan Vs. The Joint Director of School Education, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.5376/C3/E2/15 dated 29.10.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as per the seniority in the final seniority panel Na.Ka.No.5376/C3/E2/15 dated 25.07.2015.) 1. The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School in Chockalingapuram, Madurai. According to the petitioner, his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant (Maths) as on 01.01.2015 by the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), the first respondent herein, in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5376/C3/E2/15 dated 25.07.2015. He shown at Sl.No.43 in the said panel. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 5376/C3/E2/15 dated 29.10.2015 delet...
Tag this Judgment!Ishad Ahamed @ Asalam Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.97 of 2010 dated 24.11.2012.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. Ishad Ahamed @ Asalam, who was convicted and sentenced on 24.11.2012 in S.C.No.97 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, is the appellant before us. 2. The charges against which the said Ishad Ahamed @ Asalam was convicted and sentenced are as follows: ad>Charge u/s.Conviction and Sentence341 IPCSimple Imprisonment for one year394 r/w 397 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, Simple Imprisonment for two months302 IPCLife Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for two months25(1b)(a) r/w.3 of Indian Arms ActRigorous Imprisonment for for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »