Chennai Court December 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.
A. Jothimani Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order/final notice passed by him in his proceedings in Notice No.03/2016/V, dated 22.11.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and ultra vires.) 1. The Petitioner is running a flour mill. The impugned order, dated 22.11.2016 came to be issued directing the Petitioner to close the flour mill within three days and intimate the same to the second respondent, on the reason that the said flour mill causes noise pollution inspite of repeated notices. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that even though the Petitioner has made a requ...
The Management, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 02.12.2009 in W.P.No.24691 of 2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P.No.24691 of 2009 dated 02.12.2009, by which, the writ Court directed the Management, H.H.261, Vinnamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, represented by its Special Officer, the appellant herein to implement the order of the Labour Court, Vellore in C.P.No.188 of 2006 dated 03.08.2009. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that vide order dated 13.02.1999, Management/appellant has dismissed the 2nd respondent. He filed I.D.No.277 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Vellore. After contest, the labour Court, by award dated 04.08.2015, set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of 2nd respondent with backwages. 3. Management/H.H.261, Vinnamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, represented by its Special Officer, filed W.P.No.36992 of 2006. On 29.09.2006, writ...
Rajammal and Others Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of the Petitioner for her property comprised in Re-Survey No.481/8 of Kallukootam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District based on the Petitioner's patta application Number: 2016/0105/30/017479, dated 6.10.2016.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to issue patta in her name in respect of the subject-matter property based on her application, dated 6.10.2016. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said application has not been considered so far. 5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim m...
M. Pandiyaraj Vs. The Commissioner Madurai Corporation and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impunged notice passed by the first respondent in proceedings Nil dated 7.12.2016 and the proceedings Nil, dated 7.12.2016 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal.) 1. Challenge made in this Writ Petition is the proceedings calling upon the Petitioner to rectify certain defects in running his business, without obtaining permission from the respondents/Corporation. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. It is seen that the respondents/Corporation has already issued a show-cause notice on 7.12.2016 and the Petitioner has not given his explanation so far. When both the proceedings impugned herein are only in the n...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
1. Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.34265 of 2016, the students were permitted to write the examination and the results are ready for publish. The supplementary examination schedule has also been published. But due to the earlier order of this Court, the results have not been published. These are the first year students. Total duration of the course is 4-1/2 years. But the result is not published for the present year. He would further state that if the results are not published, the failed students cannot take up the supplementary examination, which is commencing from 26.12.2016. But the last date for submitting on line application, without fine is till 13.12.2016 and with fine is 16.12.2016. So first of all, these students should know whether they have passed and if they have failed, they have to take up the suppl...
P. Sadish @ Sadishkumar Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Tiruppur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in S.C.No.187 of 2011 dated 28.09.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur. He stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 392 I.P.C. By judgment dated 28.09.2012, the trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 449 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to under simple imprisonment f...
K. Chellam Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to dispose of the appeal in Na.Ka.No.A6/2338/2016 pending on his file by conducting proper enquiry after providing sufficient opportunities of hearing to the petitioner by receiving the documents witnesses supported by her.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal by conducting enquiry and by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by receiving the documents. 2. Since the writ petition can be disposed of without affecting the interest of the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent, while hearing the appeal arising out of the patta proceedings, has not given sufficient opportuni...
M. Balasubramanian Vs. The General Manager, TNSTC, Kanyakumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2016 in the light of report given by the Dean Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dated 06.09.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2016 in the light of report given by the Dean Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dated 06.09.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a brain surgery undergone by the petitioner, he was not in a position to drive the bus as advised by the Doctor and that he was assigned light duty by the respondents; that all of a sudden, May, 2016 onwards, the petitioner was not allowed to do the light duty, which forced him to submit a represen...
M/s. Transstroy North Cargo Berth III Port Private Limited and Others ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.23875 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the wrongly forfeited Performance Guarantee furnished by the Petitioner Company for due performance of its obligations during the Construction Phase, amounting to Rs.21,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one crores only) along with interest at State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate(SB PLR) plus 2% per annum from the date of forfeiture till the date of repayment to the Petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court and for consequential orders. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.23876 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the wrongly forfeited Performance Guarantee furnished by the Petitioner Company for due performance of its obligations during the Construction Phase, amounting to Rs.4,20,00,000/- (Ru...
T.P. Mayavan Vs. Sowcar Gopaldass Dwarakadas Family Trust Estate, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-14-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Judge, Thiruchirappalli, dated 23.01.2009 in O.S.No.30 of 2004.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 (Originally O.S.No.635 of 1996) on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 for directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- with future interest and for consequential relief. 3. The case of the plaintiff / respondent in the suit are as follows: 3.1. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff trust. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.164 of 1992 for recovery of possession (Renumbered as O.S.No.31 of 2004). The defendant though claimed to be the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property, it is false. The defendant was only given a license to reclaim the land in order to raise coconut thope. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »