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.
M/s. Mahadevan Metals Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Namakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Goods Detention Notice No.2069/16-17 dated 28.09.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Goods Detention Notice No.2069/16-17 dated 28.09.2016 issued by the respondent. In the impugned notice, the goods have been detained for two reasons, namely, non-availability of Form-JJ and there is nothing to show that the petitioner has had interstate transactions during the year 2016-2017. 3. In order to afford an opportunity to the respondent to reply to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate was directed to get instruction. Accordingly, written instruction has been given by the Deputy Commercial Tax officer, [Roving Squad] Enforcemen...
Dr. Sasikumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent by directing the 3rd respondent to register a case against wrong doer by attempting to evict the petitioner from the said house.) 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. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
B. Shanmugam Vs. The Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipality, Municipali ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality. 2. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be sufficed if the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.06.2011, is disposed of, by the second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court. 3. In view of the ab...
M. Wilson Sundarraj Vs. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Bo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from drawing electricity line across the petitioner's property from pole No.5 stands in the petitioner's patta land in Re-Sy.185/9 Nallur Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 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. 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....
S. Kathamuthu Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary and Gratuity together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) Order: 1. The benefits bestowed by law upon an employee in recognition of his committed continuous loyal and devoted duty by payment of the pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. are in the nature of property. 2. This right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law, as right to property has been recognised under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be ...
B. Gandhimathi Vs. T. Diagarajan, The Commissioner, Puducherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondent herein for his act of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.03.2015 made in W.P.No.8352 of 2014.) 1. There is no representation for the Petitioner. 2. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent/Contemnor brings it to the notice of this Court that the Respondents to W.P.No.8352 of 2014 had complied with the order passed by this Court dated 20.03.2015. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Contemnor that the Petitioner had paid the amount and as on date, she is enjoying the water connection. 3. In view of the fact that the order passed by this Court dated 20.03.2015 in W.P.No.8352 of 2014 was complied with by the Respondent/Contemnor and also, this Court taking note of the pivotal fact that the Petitioner is enjoying the water connection as on date, comes to a resultant conclusion that nothing survives for adjudication in...
V. Gopalan Vs. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No.513/SC/2013 dated 13.11.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.11.2013 passed in Ref.No.513/SC/2013 as illegal, by which the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from the date of detention, i.e., 27.09.2013. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.03.2014, the ...
J. Sangili Vs. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Grea ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for joining in the combined Engineering Services in view of selection in the examination conducted by the first respondent and to consequently direct the first respondent to recommend the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer in the combined Engineering Services within the time that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for joining in the combined Engineering Services, in view of selection in the examination conducted by the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to recommend the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer in the combined Engineering Services within the time that may be stipulated by this Court. 2. He...
Mohan Dass Vs. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigham Ltd. Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsto restore the petitioner in Shop No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai pending disposal of the above writ petition. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner in Shop No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai pending disposal of the above writ petition. 2. It is seen that the petitioner running a Public Telephone Booth at No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai. Originally the said shop was allotted to Dhana Pandian by the first respondent. The said Dhana Pandian adopted the petitioner as his son. Thereafter, the said Dhana Pandian passed away. After his death, the petitioner is continuing the Telephone Booth business in the above place. While so, the 3rd and 4th respondents with a help of the second respondent subordin...
Irudhayaraj Vs. Durairaj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(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.1068 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2009, dated 1.8.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.1068 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2009, dated 1.8.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur. 2. According to the Petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur for declaration to declare the suit second schedule property belongs to the Petitioner and for recovery of possession. The suit schedule properties consist of two schedules comprised in S.No.256/1A/2. The first schedule is measuring about 12 cents and the second schedule is the part of the first schedule measuring three cents situated on the western side of the first property. In the aforesa...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »