Chennai Court October 2016 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.
Subburaj Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition is 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 order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.2065 dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to issue legal heirship certificate to the petitioner forthwith.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent/Tashildar rejecting the petitioner's request for issuing the legal-heir certificate. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the brother of one Balakrishnan, an unmarried person and died on 24.11.2015. During his life time, he was living with the petitioner and their parents also died. After his death, the petitioner along with his four brothers and three sisters filed an application before the respondent for issuance of legal-heir certificate. Based on the application, an enquiry was also conducted and statement was also obtained by the Revenue Inspect...
O. Ramachandran and Others Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 5th respondent, quash the order dated 28.4.2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai passed in O.A.No.785 of 2011 while declaring Rule 6 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 as unconstitutional, null and void as being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant pension to the petitioners as per the rules relating to pension applicable to the employees of the Department of Post, the Government of India.) S. Manikumar, J 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 28.4.2014 made in O.A.No.785 of 2011, by which, the Tribunal has declined to declare Rule 6 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, as unconstitutional a...
M.R. Subramani Vs. A.S. Elangovan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.607 of 2010 in O.S.No.369 of 2010, dated 23.09.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.607 of 2010 in O.S.No.369 of 2010, dated 23.09.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karur. 2. The Petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.379 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur. The aforesaid suit was filed for permanent injunction against the respondents. According to the Petitioner, the first respondent is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 8.1.1996 executed by one Muthusamy. The Petitioner is doing contract business and supply of water and soil in the name of 'MRS Earth Works and Movers' and having JCB Lorry Tipper Lorry. Th...
Vakkela Vs. The Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil Nadu ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the order of the second respondent herein in Memo No.314/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 17.03.2016, against the detenu namely Sattu @ Dhurabudeen son of Batsha, aged about 30 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same, consequently directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu namely Sattu @ Dhurabudeen, aged 30 years, Son of Batsha,challenging the Detention Order in Memo No.314/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Dru...
C. Karunakaran Vs. The Authorized Officer,Syndicate Bank, Regional Off ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records pertaining the E-Auction Sale Notice Ref.No.MRO/REC/2015/SARFAESI dated 28.09.2015 and the consequential sale held on 13.11.2015 ending up with issuance of Sale Certificate and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 05.05.2015 and the sale held on 10.06.2015 in respect of the property in Door No.1, Pandian Nagar,Dindigul.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, would aver among other things, that his wife had started the Company along with one Raja in the name and style of M/s.Green Health Agro Oils (P) Ltd and borrowed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.3.25 crores from the second respondent bank and the wife of the petitioner stood as a guarantor and mort...
Parvin Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN 72 AH 7426 forthwith.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Regn.No.TN 72 AH 7426 forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been plying Omni Bus bearing Regn.No.TN 72 AH 7426 from Trichy to Chennai and the said vehicle was transferred in her name on 10.02.2016; that on 28.08.2016, when the bus was on its way to Karur for some maintenance works, the said vehicle was impounded by the 2nd and the 3rd respondents on the ground that it carried extra five seats and the bus was taken to the 1st respondent office; that she submitted detailed representations dated 16.09.2016 and 28....
Arunagiri Vs. The Authorised Officer, The Karur Vysya Bank, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the sale by receiving the remaining 75% of bid amount and issue sale certificate in accordance with law.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Auction Purchaser, has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein, to conclude the sale by receiving the remaining 75% of the bid amount and issue Sale Certificate in accordance with law. 2. On 22.9.2016, after considering the averments made in the supporting affidavit, and submissions of Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioner, we passed the following order: " Inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 9 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the e-auction, conducted on 7/9/2016, the petitioner was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.71,7...
T. Sivanatham Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secret ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ and pass suitable direction or order as follows:- A.directing the Superintendent of Sub-Jail at Pudukkottai to produce Mr.Boopathikarthikeyan and Mr.Duraiguna @ Gunasekaran, who were remanded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi in Crime No.187 of 2016, on the file of the Karampakudi Police Station, on 10.06.2016 before this Court B. directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of Mr.Boopathikarthikeyan and Duraiguna @ Gunasekaran. C. Directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to submit a detail report at earliest to this Hon'ble Court with regard to the violations committed on Mr.Boopathikarthikeyan and Duraiguna @ Gunasekaran and pay the compensation for the violation as this Hon'ble Court may fix. D. issuing any other order direction as this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the circumstance of this matter.) S. N...
S. Sangeetha Proprietor of M/s. Surya Tech Zone Chennai Vs. The Presid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 14/9/2016, made in I.A.SR.No.8380 of 2016 in A.P.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently grant two weeks time to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 22/8/2016 made in Appeal No.23 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.) S. Manikumar, J. Aggrieved by the order, made in A.P.No.23 of 2015, dated 14/9/2016, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, instant writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 14/9/2016, made in I.A.SR.No.8380 of 2016 in A.P.No.23 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently, grant two weeks time, to the petitioner, to comply with the order, dated 22/8/2016, made in Appeal No.23 o...
M. Ramasamy Vs. The Inspector of Police Keelkuppan Police Station, Vil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 09.12.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.2162 of 2015 in CC.No.247 of 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi.) 1. The Criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi made in Crl.MP.No.2162 of 2015 in CC.No.247 of 2014 dated 09.12.2015. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is not at all involved in the above said Cr.No.126 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 286 and 304(A) IPC r/w.9B(i)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. There is no incriminating materials available on the side of the prosecution to file final report against the revision petitioner, without considering the above facts, the trial Court erroneously implicated the present petitioner in the aforesaid crime number as one of the accused under Section 319 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner had not committe...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »