Chennai Court November 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.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings Vs. The Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the Impugned Award in I.D.No. 243 of 1994 dated 05.03.1996 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Commissioner of Corporation, challenging the award dated 05.03.1996 passed by the labour Court, in I.A.No.243 of 1994, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent, who was terminated from service for his unauthorised absence, apart from paying backwages to him. 2.1 The 2nd respondent was employed under the petitioner Corporation as a labourer from 09.10.1972. He remained absent without reporting to duty unauthorisedly from 20.11.1991 to 17.09.1992. Thereafter, on the employee's assurance that he will be regular in his attendance, he was permitted to join duty on 18.09.1992, as per memo dated 17.09.1992. 2.2 Even after the above incident, the 2nd respondent ben...
M. Pon Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned assessment order dated 03.06.2010 in Assessment No.275786 on the file of respondent No.2 and 3 and quash the same as illegal.) Order: 1. The writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging an assessment to the property, which is the vacant land, dated 03.06.2010, on the ground that the assessment on the basis of market value is not correct. As per the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act as applicable to Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation and as per Section 122, the entire tax cannot exceed 6% of the total annual rental value. Whereas, it was assessed at 11%, therefore, it is claimed that the assessment is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 2. The proceedings of the second respondent in assessment No.275786, dated 03.06.2010, would reveal that the land value was shown in the registered sale deed was Rs.21,93,122/- ...
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. The Indian Overseas Bank Rep. By i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to forbear the 1 st respondent from proceeding with the recovery proceedings issued a ''Public Auction Notice'' in Dinakaran newspaper on 28.12.2010 for the sale of the property of the 2 nd respondent without confirming the arrears of Sales Tax or without wide promulgation for transfer for consideration for arrears of Sales Tax Rs.2,57,64,830/- due to the Petitioner Department for the period from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 on which charge is subsisting as this Court may deem fit. Common Order: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The writ petitions have been listed before the Full Bench in pursuance to the reference order in W.P.No.6267 of 2006 and W.P.No.253 of 2011, in respect of the following issues:- ''a) As to whether the Financial Institution, which is a secured creditor, or the department of the government concerned, would have the 'Priority of Charge' over the mortgaged property in que...
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Madurai Vs ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1381 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1382 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1383 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.) Common Judgment: 1. The appellant/Insurance Company Limited filed these C.M.A(MD)Nos.770 to 772 of 2015, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1381, 1382 and 1383 of 2011 respectively, dated 30.07.201...
M. Seeni Ahamed Vs. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ 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 notification issued by the respondent No.1, dated 08.11.2016 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pass an order to open money transactions in all banks, ATMs and other financial organization on 09.11.2016 and 10.11.2016 to enable the people to change their 500,1000 Rupees currencies and to declare the high denomination notes Rs.1000 and Rs.500 as valid till 30.12.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, while addressing the Nation on the night of 08.11.2016, announced the decision of the Government of India, to demonetize the existing Rupees 500 and 1000 currency notes, which are in circulation in the Country. The Hon'ble Prime Minister also highlighted that the said measure is an attempt to tackle black money in the economy, to lower the cash circulation, which is ...
M/s. Noor Timbers, Rep. by its Partner, H. Howdali @ Babu Vs. The Stat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 16.08.2016 made in W.P.(MD) No.14972 of 2016.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, claims to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner concern and according to him the partnership concern is a dealer in timbers. The 3rd respondent has already issued TIN number under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and he is also an assessee on the file of the 3rd respondent and the concern used to file returns. In respect of the assessment year 2010-2011, the 3rd respondent also accepted the returns, however, has not passed any orders. The petitioner was issued with summons in Form-PP on 18.11.2015, calling upon them to produce 10 documents and in compliance of the same all th...
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Yerwada, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2011, dated 11.10.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur.) Judgment: 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.209 of 2014, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2011, dated 11.10.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur. 2. The present case on hand, is an unfortunate case of a fatal accident and the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident. The heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an award amount of Rs.9,29,472/- towards the total compensation. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that the deceased was a Bachelor and was working in a Hote...
Muthuraj @ Muthuraman Vs. State represented by, The Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to admit this appeal on file, to call for the records from the Lower Court and to duly set aside the Judgment passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in his S.C.No.51 of 2013, dated 29.10.2015.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No.51/2013 on the file of the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302, 201, 506(ii) of I.P.C against this Appellant/1st Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 29.10.2015 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six months, under Section 201 and 506 (ii) have not been proved against 1st accused and 2nd accused. The 2nd accused was acquitted by the Trial Court. The set off was allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challe...
T.S. Ramachandra Marthandan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in ref. Na.Ka.(B2) 56/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and quash the same in so far as directing re-enquiry by the 2nd respondent.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ, or order to call for the records and quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent in ref. Na. Ka (B2) 56/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and quash the same in so far as directing re-enquiry by the 2nd respondent. 2. There was no appearance for the petitioner and heard Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he and his brother Thiru.T.S.Udayachandra Marthandam jointly own some stretch of property in S.No.65/1 measuring 0.70....
The Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2016
(Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.08.2016 made in W.P.No.29551 of 2016. 1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/original petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the appellants to consider his representation dated 01.08.2016 for waiver of crop loan amount of Rs.87,000/- based on G.O.Ms.No.50 (Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CCI) Department) dated 23.05.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.59 (Co-opration, Food and Consumer Protection (CCI) Department) dated 28.06.2016. 2. The respondent claimed himself to be a ''small farmer'' owning 3 acres of land and thus sought the benefit of the crop loan as per the said Government Orders. It is the case of the respondent that his father owned 11.5 acres of land comprised in S.No.230/1 and 234/1 bearing Patta No.1278 at Kannapalli Village, Anthiyur ...