Chennai Court December 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.
Madras University Teachers Association (MUTA), (Regd. No. 37/1977), Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayers: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent herein relating to the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Senate held on 15.10.2015 nominating the 4th respondent herein as the nominee of the Senate to serve on the Search Committee for appointment to the Post of Vice Chancellor in the Madras University and quash the same and direct the respondent University herein to form a Search Committee in accordance with clause 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010.) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent herein relating to the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Syndicate held on 16.10.2015 nominating the 4th respondent herein as the nominee of the Syndicate to serve on the Search Committee for appointment to the Post of Vice Chancellor in...
Satyaseelan Vs. The Commissioner of Excise, Government of Puducherry, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in publication issued in No.1060/thu.Aa(Ka)/Auction/2015-16 Puducherry dated 08.06.2015 and quash the same insofar as the Shop No.1A allotted to the petitioner is concerned in item No.1 of the notification and consequentially direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the arrack shop for the period 2015-16 as the license for the period 2014-15 was unutilized by non supply of arrack by the respondents.) 1. The writ petitioner, Mr.Satyaseelan, aggrieved by the impugned auction notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Puducherry, the second respondent in No.1060/thu.Aa(Ka)/Auction/2015-16 Puducherry dated 8.6.2015, has filed the present writ petition to quash the same insofar as the Shop No.1A allotted to the petitioner is concerned in item No.1 of the notification with a consequentia...
State by the Inspector of Police, CS CID, Tiruppur District Vs. Nizamu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused in Crl.O.P.No.28894 of 2013, dated 22.11.2013.) This petition by the prosecution is to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused. 2. On 22.11.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.28894 of 2013, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner imposing certain conditions. One of the condition is that he should appear before the respondent police twice a week at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 3. Prosecution filed this petition to cancel the said anticipatory bail order on the ground that the respondent/accused had failed to appear before the police as directed. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation has been completed and final report also has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore as early as on 30.4.2014. He would submit that now prosecution is not concerned with the cancellation of anticip...
S. Natarajan and Others Vs. S.V. Global Mills Limited and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: These Review Applications have been filed to review the order of this dated 27.04.2014 made in the Company Appeal Nos.13 and 14 of 2014 respectively.) 1. These Review Petitions have been filed against the orders in CA.Nos.13 and 14 of 2014, dated 27.04.2015, contending that the questions of law raised in the appeals have not been considered and therefore, the appeals were erroneously dismissed, as not maintainable. 2. The appeals were filed against the against the order dated 23.10.2014 passed in C.P.No.62/2014 by the Company Law Board, Chennai, dismissing the interim reliefs sought for by the Petitioners therein, who are the petitioners in RP No 95 of 2015 and the 7th respondent therein, who is the petitioner in R.P No 94 of 2015. The Company Petition was filed after the 7th respondent was defeated in the election for the post of Director. Alleging irregularity in the election process and oppression, the petition was filed seeking many reliefs. Interim reliefs in the nature o...
P. Ganesan Vs. The Competent Authority of Urban Land Ceiling and Assis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 30.11.1994 in Na.Ka.8666/88 and proceedings dated 30.06.1997 in even Number of the respondent herein obtained by the petitioner on 15.02.2010 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that he is the owner of the land of an extent of 1.39 acres in S.No.242 in Thiruneermalai Village, Tambaram Taluk. The petitioner purchased the lands by way of registered sale deed dated 18.02.1993 for valuable consideration without notice of any proceedings of any acquisition of lands under any enactment. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession of the lands and till date, the petitioner is regularly paying the taxes and other incidental charges. The petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land ever since the date of purchase without any let or hindrance from any person and at no point of time t...
Ragupathy and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in S.F.No.267/5 to an extent of 1.18.0 hectares and the land in S.F.No.268/3 to an extent of 0.99.0 hectares, Vilankurichi Taluk, Coimbatore Taluk and District forthwith, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) 1. The first petitioner has submitted that the first and second petitioners and one Thiru.Kesavan (Late) are legal-heirs of Tmt.K.Savithri Ammal, (mother). The fourth petitioner is wife of Kesavan, 5th and 6th petitioners are the children (son and daughter) of Kesavan and therefore, the respondents 4 to 6 are legal-heirs of Kesavan. The first petitioner has further submitted that the property in S.F.No.267/5 and S.F.No.268/3, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District belongs to the mother of the petitioner Tmt.K.Savithiri Ammal and after her dem...
Sungwoo Stamping Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from adjudicating the permanency claim bearing Ref.No.Na.Ka.(U)4341/2013-2, dated 21.11.2013, raised by the respondents 2 to 37, before the fist respondent against the petitioner on merits, without first deciding the preliminary objection as to maintainability raised by the petitioner in accordance with law.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the first respondent from adjudicating the permanency claim bearing Ref.No.Na.Ka.(U)4341/2013-2, dated 21.11.2013, raised by the respondents 2 to 37, against the petitioner, on merits, without deciding the preliminary objection as to the maintainability raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioner, their Company is incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufa...
The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai Vs. M/s. Strategi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 08.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.11427 of 2006.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, setting aside a demand for payment of Service Tax. 2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Department and Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. The respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of GRP pipes. Upon perusal of the accounts of the respondent/assessee, the Department noticed that the assessee received an amount of Rs.5,19,45,145/- towards labour charges for installation and commissioning of GRP Pipes for various customers during the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.10.2004. Therefore, a show cause notice, dated 30.05.2005, was issued on the ground that they are liable to pay service tax on the value of the service rendered by them under the category of "Erection, Commissioning or Instal...
The Director, The School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order, dated 4.9.2014 made in W.P.No.20263 of 2014 on the file of this Court.) P. Devadass, J. This Writ Appeal, at the instance of the respondent/Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, arises out of the order of the Writ Court passed in W.P.No.20263 of 2014 on 4.9.2014. 2. The writ petitioner Mahalakshmi joined the Five Year Integrated B.A.B.L.,(Hons.) Degree Course in the School of Excellence in Law of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University in Chennai. She passed I and II Semester Examinations successfully. Problem arose in her appearing for III Semester (II year 2013-2014) Examination. She was not permitted to write the III Semester Examination by the University as she had secured only 52.9% as against 75% of attendance prescribed by the University. 3. In the meanwhile, she had gone to IV Semester. On 16.12.2013, the University directed her to redo III Semester during the academic year 2014-2015. On 22...
E. Damodharan Vs. Triplicane Annadhana Samajam, Rep. by its Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 15.09.2014 made in A.S.No.137 of 2013 by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.12.2012 made in O.S.No.2736 of 2003 by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.2736 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The said suit was filed for recovery of the suit premises from the defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out any work in the suit property. By decree and judgment dated 06.12.2012, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on or before 06.02.2013. The trail court also granted a decree for permanent inunction restraining the defendant from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »