Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
G. Sakthi Ayyanar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chie ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to receive the Petitioner's RTI Applications dated 25.3.2015 and 7.4.2015 and provide information in accordance with RTI Act and further to direct the first respondent to ensure that all Public Information Officers of the Tamil Nadu State Government would receive all RTI Applications in future and enforce the RTI Act properly.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!A. Mariya Anandhamary @ Anandhi Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathap ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(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 consider the Petitioner's application for new ration card dated 8.12.2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to give new ration card to our family.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for issuance of a new ration card. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppanlearned 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. It is seen that the Petitioner has made such a request before the respondents through her application, dated 17.2.2014 followed by another representation, dated 8.12.2016. The grievance of the Petitioner is that till date the authorities have not considered her request. 5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner, I only direct...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Ramasamy Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ 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 first respondent in Ou.Mu.43412-2010, dated 26.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to reconsider his uncommunicated order in Mu.Mu-98407-03, dated 24.02.2005 after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner is the owner of a Revolver under license dated 06.09.1987 and it was renewed periodically. According to the petitioner, his business involves may rivals and he is always under threat and he is in need of protection. He has neither involved in any abuse of Revolver nor he has been charged for criminal proceedings. While that being so, the first respondent on 26.07.2010 has cancelled his license without any notice to him. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the second resp...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focussed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 15.11.2016 in S.C.No.53 of 2016 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. 3. The Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, while passing the Judgment in S.C.No.53 of 2016 on 15.11.2016, had found the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused not guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. and acquitted him. However, in respect of the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C., it found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the Appellant/Accused was further directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of si...
Tag this Judgment!K. Janaki and Another Vs. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in R.A.No.131 of 2010 (T.A.No.1927 of 2002, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore), dated 27/12/2013, by which the Appellate Tribunal, set aside the order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2. Material on record discloses that the first petitioner engaged in manufacturing and exports of cotton knitted garments, has availed loan from M/s. Punjab and Sindh Bank, International Banking Division, Tiruppur. Part of the loan amount has been paid. After following the procedure set out in the Recovery of Debts Due to Financial and Institutions Act, 1993, M/s. Punjab and Sindh Bank/third respondent has filed O.A.No.311 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai, which was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and renumbered as T.A.No.1927 of 2002. 3. On contest and taking note of the submissions of the writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to cancel the patta on the name of the 6th respondent and give the patta with regard to the land in Arumalaikottai village R.S.No.952/2 (1.56.0 hectares) to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2010.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus to cancel the patta issued in favour of the fifth respondent by the concerned Revenue Official, namely, the third respondent. 2. Needless to say that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy as provided under the Patta Pass Book Act before the competent authority, if he has any grievance against the grant of patta in favour of the fifth respondent. Without resorting to such course of action, filing of the present writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School E ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the interim order dated 15.12.2015, passed in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD).No.22514 of 2015, by a learned Single Judge of this Court.) R. Subbiah, J. 1. These Appeals have been filed as against the common order, dated 15.12.2015, made in M.P.(MD).Nos.2, 2, 2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD).Nos.22514 to 22519 of 2015, whereby and whereunder this Court directed the 4th appellant herein to give temporary approval to the first respondent in all the appeals, who were appointed as Post Graduate Assistants and B.T. Assistant, as the case may be. 2. In the year 2011, the first respondents in W.A.(MD).Nos.183, 184, 185, 186 and 188 of 2015 were appointed as P.G. Assistants and the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.187 of 2015 was appointed as B.T. Assistant by the Correspondent of the second respondent school, whose Correspondent-ship was approved by the fourth respondent - the District Educational Officer on 10.02.201...
Tag this Judgment!Fine Fabrics, Rep., by its Partner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ARC ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to accept the export obligation and discharge certificate (EODC) dated 11.4.2014 issued by the joint director General of Foreign Trade and not to enforce the Bank Guarantee no. 253/2014 (BG.NO:BO51BGP140520001) for a sum of Rs.6 50 000/- dated 21.2.2014 issued by the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to accept the export obligation and discharge certificate (EODC) dated 11.4.2014 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and not to enforce the Bank Guarantee No. 253/2014 (BG.NO:BO51BGP140520001) for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- dated 21.2.2014 issued by the Karur Vysya Bank Limited. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. It is seen that the the petitioner seeks fo...
Tag this Judgment!S. Velayutham Vs. N. Muthukumar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 and made in A.S.Nos.20 of 2009 and 90 of 2009 respectively on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 and made in O.S.No.961 of 1999 and 1494 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Principal Sub ordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) Common Judgment: 1. Challenge in the second appeal No.327 of 2011 is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 made in A.S.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 made in O.S.No.961 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. 2. Challenge in the second appeal No.328 of 2011 is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 made in A.S.No.90/2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore,...
Tag this Judgment!E. Manickam and Others Vs. S. Jayaraman, The Chief Engineer (AE), Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.7749 of 2008 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of this Court.) K. Ravichandrabaabu,J. 1. It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors that the writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.273 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.7749 of 2008, wherein notice has been ordered by the Division Bench. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this Contempt Petition is closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to revive if an occasion so arises in future. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »