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 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Virudhunag ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in MCOP No.226 of 2013 dated 01.12.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in MCOP No.226 of 2013 dated 01.12.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar. 2. The accident took place on 30.09.2013 at about 9.30 p.m at Railway Feeder Road near Income Tax Office, Junction Virudhunagar. It is a case of grievous injuries more specifically fractures on the right femur, right hip, right limb and all over the body. The claimant was working as an Accountant in Om Sathya Mills, Virudhunagar and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.2,17,375/- towards compensation. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental I...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
T.S. Sivagnanam, J 1. Heard Mr.Arvind P.Datar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran, learned counsel on record for the petitioner. 2. The learned Senior Counsel has prefaced his submission by contending that he is conscious of the fact that as against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. But, the reason for the petitioner to bypass the said remedy and to file this writ petition is purely on a legal question without venturing into the factual scenario. 3. It is pointed by the learned Senior Counsel that the Commissioner, who adjudicated the show cause notice dated 22.10.2015, had come to the conclusion that the contract entered into by the petitioner is a composite contract and that the petitioner has artificially vivisected such composite contract to classify the service portion alone as erection, commission or installation services, which are not in line with the relevant statutory provisions. The other factual...
Rajammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary/Commissione ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to withheld the fourth respondent's retirement benefits till the legal heirs names will be entered in the service records and other connected pension papers of the fourth respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct the petitioner's share from the fourth respondent's retirement benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withhold the fourth respondent's retirement benefits till the legal heirs names will be entered in the service records and other connected pension papers of the fourth respondent and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct the petitioner's share from the fourth respondent's retirement benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the fourth respondent was arranged by the...
Union of India, Rep. By the General Manager, Chennai and Others Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.1574 of 2012 dated 16.12.2015 and quash the same.) 1. Challenge in this writ petition by Railways, is to an order made in O.A.No.1574 of 2012 dated 16.12.2015, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directed the writ petitioners not to give effect to the recovery of excess payment made, pursuant to the withdrawal of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) benefit. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that private respondents, were appointed in the Ministerial cadre in Group- 'C', Southern Railways, Tiruchirappalli Division and vide proceedings dated 03.11.2009, 29.07.2010, 14.10.2010, 19.10.2010 and 15.12.2010 respectively, they were allowed III MACP Scheme benefits. Railways found that the private respondents are not entitled to III MACP Scheme benefits and proceeded to wit...
E. Subramanian Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbako ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in computing the gratuity, leave salary payable to the petitioner by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on his pay / wages at the rate of 58% instead of 65% as illegal and contrary to the G.O.No.116 Finance (Allowance) Department dated 09.04.2012 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently direct the respondents to compute and pay him the difference amount in gratuity and leave salary by taking into account revised rate of dearness allowance i.e. at the rate of 65% of pay + grade pay as fixed in G.O.No.116 Finance (Allowances) Department dated 09.04.2012 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.) Order: 1. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent corporation as Clerk with effect from 09.11.1981; that he was promoted as Junior Assistant and finally as Selection Grade Se...
Nature Care Trust, Madurai represented by the Founder and Managing Tru ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Notification in G.O.(Ms)No.143 (Environment and Forests (FR.5) Department dated 20.09.2013 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Nature Care Trust, represented by the Founder and Managing Trustee Mr.V.Asokan, Plot No.17/55, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20 under the Public Interest Litigation, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Notification in G.O.(Ms)No.143 (Environment and Forests (FR.5) Department dated 20.09.2013 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sought for the above relief by saying that since the declaration of Kodaikanal Wild Life Sanctuary Notification by the respondent No.2 ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Notice through Court was sent by the Registry for the hearing on 01.11.2016. For ascertaining as to whether the Court Notice was served on the Respondents, this Court directs the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam to submit a Report in this regard to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on or before 08.11.2016. 2. Soon after receipt of the Report from the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, the Registry is directed to list the matter....
G.K.R. Pandiyan Vs. M/s. Jai Emu Farms Pvt Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
1. This is an application filed by Mr.G.K.R.Pandiyan, Advocate. 1.1. Mr.G.K.R.pandiyan, is the Advocate for the petitioner company. C.P: 235 of 2012 has been instituted by Jai Emu Farms Pvt. Ltd., 1.2. This petition was filed by the petitioner company to seek voluntary winding up. 2. The record shows that, vide order dated 13.6.2014, the petitioner company was directed to furnish details of its assets, and their location etc., in order to enable the Official Liquidator, to move further in the matter. 2.1. Since the needful was not done, on 20.07.2016, further indulgence was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only), which was to be deposited in the common pool fund maintained by the Official Liquidator. 2.2. The proceeding of 01.09.2016 would show that cost was not paid, whereupon, the matter was re-notified on 14.9.2016, as Mr.Pandiyan was not available on that date. Pertinently, it was indicated that, if the directions of this Court w...
Subramanian and Another Vs. Savundammal and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and executable order made in I.A.No.78 of 2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2008, dated 8.6.2010, on the file of the Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai.) 1. Mr.T.Balaji, learned counsel on record for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners, the main suit itself was disposed of on 28.10.2011. Therefore nothing survives in the present Civil Revision Petition for adjudication. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has not disputed the above said fact submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M/s. Aravindh Leather Corporation, rep. by its Partner A.Raja Mohan, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
(Prayer:Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to send the sample pieces in respect of the finished leathers imported by the petitioner firm and forwarded by the Customs Authorities to him, for testing for ANTHRAX to the Central University Laboratory at Madhavaram in respect of the petitioner's consignment bearing BE.No.Dt./cc/Typ:6158103/28/07/2016/N/H and consequent to the test report that would be issued by the Central University Laboratory at Madhavaram to issue NOC for clearance or objection certificate as the case may be to the petitioner firm and issue release order.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with the writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the second respondent to send the sample pieces in respect of the finished leathers imported by the petitioner firm and forwarded by the Customs Authorities to him, for testing for ANTHRAX to the Central University Laboratory at Madhava...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »