Chennai Court November 2015 Judgments
Deivanai Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Others
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 Panchayat to start and complete the work of laying concrete road with drainage watercourse on the Pasumpon street, Chekkanurani, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District within a period this court stipulates.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent Panchayat to start and complete the work of laying concrete road with drainage watercourse on the Pasumpon street, Chekkanurani, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the 3rd respondent Panchayat has assured to lay concrete road with drainage water system on the Pasumpon street, Chekkanurani, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, the same has not been done so far. Therefore, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 19.06.2015. It is stated that the said representation is still pending. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is di...
Tag this Judgment!J. Krishnakumar Vs. State by, The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondent to register FIR against the named said persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 27.08.2015.) 1. This petition is filed for a direction to the respondent to register FIR against the named persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 27.08.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there is an enmity between the petitioner and paternal uncle's family and a civil case is also pending between them. Whileso, the petitioner's paternal uncle made a false complaint against the petitioner under PCR Act, but the police after investigation closed the complaint as 'mistake of fact' and after that, the petitioner's paternal uncle induced his son-in-law one M.Parvathakannan and the said M.Parvathakannan frequently called upon the petitioner through his friends cellphones and threatened the petitioner and also sent threatening S...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chitra Mary Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Sch ...
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 relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.4362/A4/2015 dated 10.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T Assistant (Tamil) w.e.f 15.06.2011 and pay arrears of salary with all consequential benefits arising thereon.) 1. The petitioner passed B.Sc (Physics), after undergoing three years regular degree course. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed in regular course and successfully passed out the same in April 1998. Thereafter, she completed M.A(Tamil) through correspondence course in Annamalai University and passed the same in May 2003. She also studied B.Lit(Tamil) in May 2007 and the duration of the B.Lit., course is one year. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one year B.L...
Tag this Judgment!Mathivanan Vs. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tirumangalam, Madurai Dist ...
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 the impugned notice passed by the second respondent in his proceedings R.T.R.F.L.Na.Ka.No.023168 dated 31.12.2012 quash the same as illegal and subsequently direct the second respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in the guise of surveying the land in dispute, which is pending before the appropriate civil Court for adjudication.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Monikandan Kunju Pillai Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pa ...
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 directing therespondent not to impound the passport in No.Z3108503 of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the respondent dated 15.09.2015 on the basis of the clarification dated 28.09.2015 given by the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent not to impound the Passport No.Z3108503 of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the respondent dated 15.09.2015 on the basis of the clarification dated 28.09.2015 given by him. 2. The petitioner was issued with a passport No.Z3108503. According to the respondent, after issuance of the said passport, an adverse police verification report was received stating that the criminal case in Crime No.549 of 2011 is pending on the file of Varapuzha Police Station, Kerala State. Therefore, the respondent issued to the impugned communication dated 15.09.2015 calling upon the petitioner to produce prop...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gunasekaran Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu ...
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 extend the pay revision benefit and 4th and 5th review benefit to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 and in terms of Settlement dated 22.01.2011 entered into under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act and to direct the respondents to pay his difference in salary, difference in monthly pension and difference amount in his retirement benefits including gratuity, leave salary and the commuted value of pension based on the above Government Order and settlement.) 1. Though the prayer in the writ petition is widely worded, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if his representation dated 18.06.2015 is disposed of by the third respondent by taking into account G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 and also 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Ac...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Seenivasan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Di ...
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 directing thefirst respondent herein to dispose of the impleading petition filed by the petitioner in Revision No.76286/2012 pending on the file of the first respondent in respect of joint patta No.269 under the name of 1.Suriya Narayana Iyer 2.A.R.M.Nagenthira Iyer Dharma Sasanam Trust represented by A.V.Kuppusamy and 3.R.Seshiyer i.e. father of the petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court ) 1. In respect of the patta proceedings, a revision came to be filed before the first respondent by the aggrieved parties, wherein, the petitioner filed an application seeking to implead himself as a party, by contending that his interest would be affected, if the revision is considered and decided, without hearing him as a party to the said proceedings. Such impleading petition filed on 19.02.2014 is opposed by the revision petitioners by filing their counter statement on 13.08.2014....
Tag this Judgment!Sakthikumar Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Natrampalli ...
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, F.T.C., Tirupathur in S.C.No.52 of 2011 dated 15.12.2011.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathur by Judgment dated 15.12.2011 in S.C.No.52 of 2011. 2. The charges under which the Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced are as follows: ad>Charge u/s.Conviction and Sentence449 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for Three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months.302 IPCLife Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months.379 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months. T...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vinod Kumar Vs. V. Arunadevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aide the order, dated 02.12.2014, made in C.M.P.No.2717 of 2014 in D.V.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. in Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aide the order, dated 02.12.2014, made in C.M.P.No.1291 of 2014 in D.V.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.) 1. Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2015, is against the order, dated 08.01.2015, C.M.P.No.1291 of 2014 in D.V.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, by which, the petition filed by wife/mother, under Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act, to grant interim custody of the minor child, Sanjana to her, till the disposal of the main petition, has been allowed. 2. Crl.R.C.No.43 of 2015, is against the order, dated 02.12.2014, C.M.P.No.2717 of 2014 in D.V.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Farida Holdings Pvt L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras B Bench, Chennai, dated 19.2.2014 in I.T.A.No.2203/Mds/2013.) 1. The tax case appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, Madras Bench, dated 19.2.2014, made in I.T.A.Nos.2203/Mds/2013, by raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act? ? 2. It has been stated that the assessee Company had filed its return of income, for the assessment year 2001-02, on 22.10.2001, admitting a total income of Rs.1,87,790/-. The return was processed, under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 8.2.2003. The assessing officer, on examining the records relating to the earlier year, as we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »