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.
N. Vanjimuthu Vs. The Competent Authority and Commissioner of Land Adm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 11 of the TNPID Act, against the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 made in O.A.No.19 of 2011 on the file of Special Court under TNPID Act Cases (Financial Establishment), Madurai.) 1. This matter relates to unfortunate depositors whose deposits are not returned for more than 15 years. 2. The 2nd respondent/Ravi and Company Bankers, Dindigul, collected deposits from 1521 persons to the tune of Rs.3,62,68,430/- before the year 2000. In spite of the deposits got matured, the depositors were not returned with money. Hence, about 528 complaints were sent by those depositors to various authorities. 3. Acting on the complaints, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1362, Home (Courts IIA) Department, dated 18.12.2000, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, (shortly, the Act) by making interim attachment of the properties and the money as per the schedule to the said G.O. At this juncture, it ...
Muthu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.69/2015 dated 04.09.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, by name Muthu, son of Veerathevar, aged about 52 years, now detained in Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) V.S. Ravi, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu. He has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Drug Offender ?. Challenging the same, he has come up with this petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learne...
T.S. Sooriyanarayanamoorthy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order of removal from service passed by him in his proceedings in ROC No.60326/2014/A2, dated 18.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.) 1. Challenging the impugned order of removal passed by the second respondent / the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, vide his proceedings dated 18.06.2015, on the ground that he was convicted in a criminal case filed before the learned Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Case, Madurai, in Special Case No.19 of 2011, 22.05.2015, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the same. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of removal from service passed by the second respondent will tantamount to double jeopardy offending Article 20(2) of the Constit...
A.M. Ashiq Arafat Vs. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C., r/w.27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to call for the records from the file of XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institution, Chennai and set-aside the order of the trial Court passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014 dated 29.09.015 in C.C.No.28 of 2012.) 1. This Criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated 29.9.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014, in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, by XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institutions. 2. The revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014 in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, on the file of the trial Court, praying to give tender of pardon to him, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as respondent. 3. The material averments made in the petition are that the respondent, as complainant, has filed a final report under Sections 120-B r/w.4...
Streamline Forwarders represented by its Managing Partner B. Srividhya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of 1st Respondent in proceedings in F.No.R-602-CHA, dated 29.04.2015 and to quash the same and to direct the 1st Respondent to issue the renewal of Customer Broker License in favour of the Petitioner.)This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2015 of the 1st Respondent, rejecting the renewal application of the Petitioner to renew the Customs Broker Licence. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Managing Partner of the Petitioner Firm, entered into a registered partnership deed 21.2.1997 with four other persons to carry on Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Business. The said firm was initially issued with Temporary Custom House Agent Licence under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation 1984. Thereafter, permanent CHA licence was issued and the partnership firm had undergone various reconstitutions from time to time. On 1.1.1998 one K.Manuvel was induct...
Union of India Vs. M/s. Prabhu Movies and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: C.M.A.No.1302 of 2008: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange dated 10.10.2007 passed in Appeal No.725/2003. C.M.A.No.1303 of 2008: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange dated 10.10.2007 passed in Appeal No.726/2003.) Common Judgment: 1. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals had been filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, dated 10.10.2007, made in Appeal No.725 of 2003 and Appeal No.726 of 2003, raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the impugned transaction of the respondent does not contravene Section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. b) Whether the finding of the ...
A.M. Ashiq Arafat Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C., r/w.27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to call for the records from the file of XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institution, Chennai and set-aside the order of the trial Court passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014 dated 29.09.015 in C.C.No.28 of 2012.) 1. This Criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated 29.9.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014, in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, by XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institutions. 2. The revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014 in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, on the file of the trial Court, praying to give tender of pardon to him, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as respondent. 3. The material averments made in the petition are that the respondent, as complainant, has filed a final report under Sections 120-B r/w.4...
Arukkaniammal Vs. Rakkiya Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012 made in A.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2011 made in O.S.No.817 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Erode.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.817 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Erode, is the appellant. The respondents are defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for partition and for separate possession of the 1/6th share of the plaintiff. The trial Court, by decree and judgment dated 26.3.2011 dismissed the suit. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2011. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, by decree and judgment dated 29.11.2011, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. As against the concurrent judgments, the appellant has come up with this second appeal. 2. During the pendency of thi...
Dr. Manikandasamy, MD(Paed)(DM) Vs. The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent university from retrospectively applying the regulation dated 02.07.2014 regarding examinations for Super Speciality Medical Courses (2012-2015) to the petitioner who obtained admission for Super Speciality Medical Course, under the respondent's regulations of the academic year 2012-13 and permit the petitioner to appear only in the failed papers (Practicals for super speciality course) in accordance with the examination regulations published by the respondent university during the academic year 2012-13 while admitting the petitioner. The petitioner after passing M.B.B.S., joined M.D.(Paediatrics) and he also passed the said course. Based on his M.D.(Paed) qualification, he was admitted to D.M.(Paed) during 2012-2013 in the Madurai Medical College, which is affiliated to the first respondent university. The duration of the said course is thre...
C. Andiappan and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu R ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 30.09.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.3036 of 2015.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. All these writ appeals arise out of the dismissal of a batch of writ petitions challenging the suspension of the hereditary trustees of a special religious endowment and the appointment of a fit person by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. 2. We have heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Department and Mr.M.Muthugeethayan, learned counsel appearing for the Temple/Fit Person. 3. By a deed of partition, executed on 07.09.1921, three brothers by name Chidambaram Pillai, Malaiperumal Pillai and Paramasivam Pillai, all sons of one Andiappa Pillai, partitioned the properties belonging to the family among themselves. The deed of partition covered several items of properties. One of the prop...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »