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.
K. Manjula Vs. The Project Director, District Planning Implementation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in No.471/S-1/2016 dated 12.8.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to run the Boys Hostel Mess at Government Engineering College Sengipatti Thanjavur.) Challenging the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the second respondent directing the petitioner to vacate the premises of the second respondent college, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- The petitioner claims to be a self help group. They were given permission to run a mess in the boys hostel of the second respondent Engineering College for the academic years 2013-...
M. Murugan Vs. The Director, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Departmen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize the petitioner's service from 06.12.1996 in time scale pay and to confer all the benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2012 within the period stipulated by this Court.) Order: 1. The writ petitioner has come out with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize his services with effect from 06.12.1996, considering his representation, dated 04.06.2012. 2. It is an unfortunate case that the job opportunity, which was due to the petitioner, was awarded to the fifth respondent, due to mistake and identity, as the name of the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and also the fathers' name and address remained identical. The third respondent intended to issue a call letter for interview to the petitioner. But unfortunately, it landed in the hands of the fifth respondent. In view of the identical n...
The Superintendent of Schools Roman Catholic Diocese of Sivagangai Via ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
M. Govindaraj, J. 1. The writ petitioner-School has filed this writ petition against the show cause notice, in Na.Ka. No.3367/A5/2008, dated 04.06.2008, issued by the sixth respondent, calling for explanation as to why the recognition and grant-in-aid granted to their School as per the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 1977 and Tamil Nadu Educational Grant-in-Aid Rules Rules shall not be stopped. 2. The case of the petitioner-School is that the courses and curriculum of their School have been regulated by the instructions issued by the Government from time to time and the staff were appointed as per the qualifications prescribed by the Government and accordingly grant-in-aid was also given. 3. That on 04.06.2008, the sixth respondent/District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, issued a show-cause notice to the Correspondent of the petitioner-School stating that on 02.06.2008, when the third respondent/District Collector, Sivagangai Dist...
M/s. Rajeswari International Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Custom H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of File NO.R-698/CHA, leading to issuance of a decision in Order-in-Original No.38747/2015, dated 11.06.2015, quash the same as being without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to activate the petitioner's CHA/CB licence forthwith until its validity i.e., until 13.06.2017 in terms of the CHALR, 2004 read with the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.) 1. Heard Dr. S.Krishnandh learned counsel appearing for Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner was issued a Customs Broker licence under the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation, 2004,(CHALR), has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmaus, to quash the order-in-original, dated 11.06.2015, passed by the respondent, in and by ...
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samuvel and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2008 dated 26.02.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Virudhunagar. Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2008 dated 26.02.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Virudhunagar.) Common Judgment 1. The accident took place on 09.05.2008 at about 09.45 a.m., at M.Reddiapatti Aruppukkottai Main Road near Kalayarkarisalkulam Diversion and it is a case of grievous injury and the claimants sustained multiple injuries all over their bodies. 2. The claim petitions were filed in M.C.O.P.Nos.102 and 103 of 2008 before the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Court, Virudhunagar. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) ea...
K.C. Jeyadhas and Others Vs. B.B. Kabeerdhas
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned docker order of interim injunction in I.A.No.241 of 2016 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 dated 09.04.2016 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and set aside the same.) 1. The civil revision petition arises against the order dated 09.04.2016 made in I.A.No.241 of 2016 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 2. According to the petitioners, the respondent herein, filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2016 for declaration and other reliefs. The respondent herein challenged the Supplementary Trust deed dated 28.01.2016 furnishing incorrect facts and claimed that he should be nominated as one of the Trustee in place of his Father K.C.Babudhas. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent herein, filed an application in I.A.No.241 of 2016 for interim injunction, restraining the 1st petitioner/1st...
Dorathi Mercy Vs. The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Compound, C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Oo.Mu.No.6158/A5/2016 dated .10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to approve the re-employment of petitioner from 01.11.2016 to 31.05.2017 i.e., till the end of academic year and pay all the service and monetary benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated Nil/10/2016 passed in Oo.Mu.No.6158/A5/2016, by which the petitioner's request for re-employment till the academic year, i.e., upto 31.05.2017 was rejected. The petitioner also sought consequential direction to the respondents herein to approve the re-employment of petitioner from 01.11.2016 to 31.05.2017 i.e., till the end of academic year and pay all the service and monetary benefits. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
1. Heard Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant. 2. Although notice through Court was served on the Respondent on 06.10.2016, today when the matter has come up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of the Respondent/A3 either in person or through Learned counsel. 3. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Crl.O.P.No.2995 of 2016 in Crl.SR.No.13133 of 2014, seeking 'Grant of Special Leave' to prefer an Appeal before this Court as against the judgment dated 24.07.2013 in Crl.A.No.18 of 2013 passed by the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. 4. The Learned Government Advocate contends that there was material evidence in regard to the hatching of conspiracy between A1 to A3 and the conduct of A1 to A3 reveal that pursuant to the conspiracy, the occurrence had taken place but this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the First Appellate Court in a proper and real perspective. ...
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tirune ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.409 of 2004 dated 22.01.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2004 dated 22.01.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. Common Judgment 1. The accident took place on 06.03.2004 at about 06.30 p.m., at Sankarankoil Senthamaram Main Road near Senthamaram Harijan Colony and it is a case of grievous injury and the claimants sustained multiple injuries all over their bodies. 2. The claim petitions were filed in M.C.O.P.Nos.409 and 410 of 2004 before the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.1,17...
D. Soundaraj Vs. A. Jeganathan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.19 of 2009 dated 30.06.2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam (Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai) confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.107 of 2003 dated 12.01.2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirumangalam.) 1. The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No107 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The first respondent in this appeal, who is the plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2003 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession in the suit common lane and for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to remove the encroachment made by the first defendant in the suit common lane. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is a c...
- ‹ Prev
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- Next ›
- Last »