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.
O.A. Ethopathar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Sethu Samuthira ...
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 1st and 3rd respondents to pay Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner's country boat based on his representation, dated 24.08.2013, with interest.) 1.The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner's country boat on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2013 with interest. 2. Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr.R.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. 4. Considering th...
J. Kanagam Vs. District Collector, Madurai and Others
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 Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.163/1/2016 M1 dated 20.7.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to Reimburse Rs.1,15,569/- (Rupees one Lakhs fifteen thousands five hundred and sixty nine only) being the actual medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner for the treatment given to the petitioner's husband for the brain problem diagnosed as OLD CVA/Multiinfarcstate/SeverCystitis/Prostatomegaly undergone by the petitioner's husband in LAKSHMANA Multi Speciality Hospital, Madurai, within a specified period that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner retired from service as P.G. Assistant on 30.04.2012; after retirement, she is receiving pension till date and from the pension, she is contributing Rs.150/- per month towards Pensioners Heal...
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Chennai and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 09.06.2008 made in C.A.Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2007 in C.P.No.215 of 2003 on the file of original side of this Court.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The appeals arise from the impugned order dated 09.06.2008 adjudicating the distribution of sale proceeds received on the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation, M/s.Lakshmi Synthetics Machinery Manufacturers Limited. The appellants before us are the two banks - State Bank of India and Corporation Bank. These two banks were the secured creditors in respect of current assets along with Union Bank of India and were also the second charge holders of the movable and immovable assets, plant and machinery. The IDBI, IFCI and ICICI were the three secured creditors having first charge for movable and immovable properties, which debts were assigned to the Standard Chartered Bank. 2. The total realisation was Rs....
Javarilal and Others Vs. N. Parthasarathy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 from the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram.) 1. Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 have approached this Court with this revision to struck off the plaint in the above said suit from the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs. 2. Heard Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondents 1 to 3, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through their respective counsels. 3. On considering the submissions made by Mr.M.L.Ramesh and also on perusal of the grounds of revision along with the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 which is sought to be struck off from the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram along ...
F. Maria Benasitha Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent herein to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent school since 01.06.2015 onwards with salary and other attendant benefits without insisting pass in Teacher Eligibility Test.) 1. This Writ of Mandamus has been filed, to direct the 3rd respondent herein to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent school since 01.06.2015 onwards with salary and other attendant benefits without insisting upon the qualification of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The 5th respondent is a recognised a...
The Postmaster General, Union of India and Another Vs. P.P. Subitha an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(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 2nd petitioner in O.A.No.1142 of 2012, dated 21.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.1142 of 2012, dated 21.01.2016, by which, the Tribunal, while setting aside the order, made in Memo No.PPS/Dlgs/2012, dated 05.09.2012, has directed the writ petitioners, to re-engage the 1st respondent in service, without prejudice to their powers to proceed, against the 1st respondent, for whatever reasons, which they might deem fit and proper. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that the 1st respondent was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak on 10.03.2011 and working in the said capacity till 05.09.2012. The Inspector of Posts, Gudalur Sub Division, Gudalur, 2nd petitioner herein, issued a proceedings, dated 05.09.2012, ter...
Sailesh R. Mehta (S.R. Mehta) Vs. The Chennai Metro Water Supply and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order made in MWSTA.No.77/2015 dated 6.9.2016 received on 20.9.2016 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same as it is against the principles of natural justice, non application of mind, perverse and consequently allow the same.) Mr.M.Jothikumar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the third respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The order impugned in this writ petition is an order passed by the fourth respondent, which is a Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act to deal with appeals as against the orders passed by the respondent Board fixing water and sewerage tax. 3. The petitioner was served with a notice...
Backiaraj and Another Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Naval ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the entire records connected to the judgment dated 24.01.2014 in S.C.No.168 of 2013, on the file of the Sessions Judge of Thiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants and acquit the appellants.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli. The Trial court framed charges under Sections 449, 302 and 394 I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 24.01.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 of I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment under Section 302 of I.P.C and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to p...
K. Muniyandi @ Thanga Muniyandi Vs. State represented by The Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment and conviction passed by the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.1 at Erode in C.A.No.29 of 2009 vide in judgment dated 04.11.2009 by modifying the judgment and conviction imposed by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.143 of 2008 vide its judgment dated 04.02.2009 and set aside the same consequently acquit the petitioner.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.1 at Erode in C.A.No.29 of 2009, dated 04.11.2009 by modifying the judgment and conviction imposed by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.143 of 2008, dated 04.02.2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, have not considered th...
Chitravelu @ Mandaikannan and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 15.07.2015, made in S.C.No.61 of 2007, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam. The first accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and the second accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 15.07.2015, convicted the first accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the said offence. The trial Court has convicted the second accused under Sections 323 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the o...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »