Chennai Court November 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.
M. Santhanam Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondent herein to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner now pending on his file in Na.Ka.No.50758/2010/G.5 dated 24.12.2011 within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition is filed directing the respondent herein to dispose of the revision filed against the order arising out of patta proceedings. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that such revision was filed seven years back and the same was numbered only in the year 2011. Ever thereafter, it is stated that the respondent has not disposed of the same, till this date. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, I only direct the respondent to dispose of the said revision of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks f...
N. Panchatcharam Vs. The Director of Town Panchayats, Chennai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.765/2014 dated 12.02.2015 and pass orders within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court in respect of providing drinking water connection in Seithur Selection Grade Town Panchayat as per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.97, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department dated 12.07.2007.) 1. Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, learned Govt.Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the elected Councilor of 14th Ward in Seithur Selection Grade Town Panchayat in Rajapalayam, Virudhungar District. He has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to consider the proposal of the third respondent and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time in respect of drinking water connection in Seithur Selection Grade Town Panc...
Prabhu @ Abdul Azees Vs. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrish ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action against the fourth and the fifth respondents for their unconstitutional activity of involvement of the petitioner liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect apart from submitting a letter dated 19.11.2015 seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition. 2. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 is closed....
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records concerning with I.D.No.131 of 2006, dated 08.10.2009, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order, dated 08.10.2009, in I.D.No.131 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the first respondent has set aside the order, dated 02.02.1986, removing the second respondent / workman from service and directed the petitioner / Management to reinstate him in service with full backwages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The second respondent was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation from 01.10.1981. On 23.09.1985, the second respondent was on duty in the bus bearing registration No.TMN 6691, in Dharmapuri “ Salem route. At about 14.30 hours, the bus was checked by the Chec...
A. Rohinikumar Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Highways, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.2922 of 2014: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the notification passed by the respondents under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3D of National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) in No.S.O.438(E), dated 25.02.2011 and to quash the same.) Common Order: All the above writ petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners herein, for forming four lane National Highways Road No.47 on the stretch of Kerala “ Tamil Nadu Border “ Kanyakumari Division. 2. Since the issue involved in all the above writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common order. 3. The facts in brief are as follows:- 3-1. The petitioners herein are owning lands in different survey numbers at different villages, in the proposed route, where the Government is intending to form four lane N...
M. Rathinavelu and Others Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 15.05.2014 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1112 of 2014 in C.C. No. 6488 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.) 1. The accused in C.C. No. 6488 of 2012 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are the revision petitioners in this Criminal Revision Case. They are aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the trial court whereby the petition filed by them under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the criminal proceedings, has been dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (i) The first accused is the father in law of defacto complainant. The second accused is her mother-in-law, the third accused is the sister-in-law and fourth accused is the husband of the third accused. The fifth accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. According to the defacto complainant, on...
Indirani and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Thiruvannamalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2009 made in S.C. No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.) 1. PW1, Indirani and her chilren have come up with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2009 made in S.C. No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. By the said order dated 26.02.2009, A-1 to A-3 in the Sessions case, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this Criminal Revision Case, are acquitted from all the charges. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.1995 at about 5.30 am, near Mathimangalam Railway gate, A-1 voluntarily obstructed the deceased Muthu Gounder who was riding his bicycle and kidnapped him to the house of the second accused where the accused 1 to 3 have entered into a criminal conspiracy and joined together with a common intention to cause the mur...
M/s. Vedanta Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayers: C.M.A.No.2427 of 2015: Appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1944, against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Misc.Order No.41202/2015, dated 11.9.2015, rejecting the application No.ST/MISC/40613/2015 in ST/40826/2014, filed by the appellant to modify the Miscellaneous Order No.40855/2015, dated 29.5.2015, disposing of an application presented under Section 5B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. C.M.A.No.2428 of 2015: Appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1944, against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Chennai in Miscellaneous Order No.40855 of 2015, dated 29.5.2015, disposing of an application presented under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, ...
M/s. Thanthi Trust Vs. M/s. Apex Agencies and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Application is filed and the Judge's Summons issued under Order 14 Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) and Section 151 CPC, to reject the plaint in C.S.No.231 of 2004 and dismiss the suit. Civil Suit No.231 of 2004 is numbered and the plaint is filed under Order 4 Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, praying to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants: (a) for a sum of Rs.2,44,91,565/- being the rental arrears due by the defendants as per the order of the learned Rent Controller from 28.04.1995 till January 2004, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation, and (b) for costs of the suit.) 1. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit which is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,44,91,565/- being the rental arrears due from the defendants as per the order of the learned Rent Controller from 28.04.1995...
Sundareshan Chettiyar Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing thesecond respondentand the third respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated02.11.2015 within a stipulated time.) 1. This Writ Petitionis filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated02.11.2015. Through the said representationthe petitioner is seeking to cancel the registration made in respect of a power of attorney deed. 2. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner at this stage. Similarly, this Courtis also not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitionin view of the fact that the very representationitself was given only on 02.11.2015 and therefore, the petitioner has to wait for a reasonable period for the respondents 2 and 3 to act on such representation. Having given representationon 02.11.2015, the petitioner is not justified in filing this W...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »