Chennai Court April 2016 Judgments
T. Sathish Vs. The Commissioner, O/o. The Commissioner (HR and CE), Hi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Appellants before us have filed separate W.P.(MD) Nos. 11088 to 11104 of 2015 to consider their written representations, dated 05.06.2015, seeking to renew the lease granted to them by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, for a further period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2018 with regard to the shops situated at Beach area in Kanyakumari, belonging to the 3rd respondent temple and by imposing condition of payment of 15% increase of rent over and above rent paid by the petitioners for the month of June 2015 and by imposing any other condition. 2. Appellants are licensees of the shops in the premises of Sri Bagavathiyamman temple, Kanyakumari District from the year 2012, on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Admittedly, they are put in possession of the shops each measuring 40 square feet. According to them, they have been regular in payment of rent. The appellants have further contended that the license period expired in 2015. They made representations for renewal of licence f...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Partner, M/s. Southern Finance, Chennai Vs. S. Veeranaswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 16.10.2009 made in E.P.No.167 of 2004 in O.S.No.2512 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the sole petitioner was died and he has not aware who are the legal heirs of the petitioner for getting instructions to continue with the case. Accordingly, the memo was recorded. 2. In view of the above, the above Civil Revision Petition is closed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai and Others Vs. A.G.L. Irudhayaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order dated 20.04.20165 made in I.A.No.5525 of 2016 in O.S.No.12065 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S.No.12065 of 2010 pending on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. The defendants therein are the respondents. The third defendant in the original suit is the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. 2. The case is in part-heard stage. In fact, the above said suit was originally filed on the Original Side of the Madras High Court as C.S.No.597 of 2006. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 19.03.2007 directed the High Court to make an effort to dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the said order of the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudalaikannu @ Ettaiah and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspect ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and its consequential proceedings and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and its consequential proceedings and quash the same. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.12 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and (3)(2)(5a) of Amendment Act (POA) 2015, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Lubes House, Annikarai, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. The Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in TIN No.33115183878/2006-07 dated 21.08.2013 and quash the same as illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2015 conduct a fresh enquiry and grant to the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in TIN No.33115183878/2007-08 dated 21.08.2013 and quash the same as illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Chennai Vs. K. Parthiban and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and award dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned V Judge, Court of Small Causes [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal], Chennai in MCOP No.3488 of 2012.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The Insurance Company is before this Court, challenging the award dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned V Judge, Court of Small Causes [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal], Chennai in MCOP No.3488 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: (i) This is a case of injury. (ii) On 02.04.2007 at about 9.15 hrs., when the injured claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-21-H-7869 in GWT Road opposite to Nokia Company, Sriperumbudur, the car coming in the opposite direction, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle, due to which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and also suffered permanent disability. (iii) The injured claimant went before the Motor Accide...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thirulokachander Vs. Union of India, rep by its Secretary, New Delh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the amendment of the By-law which are inconsistent with the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, as registered by the Second respondent in proceedings No.L-11016/16/87-LandM, dated 15.05.2013, approving the amendment proceeding, dated 24.11.2012, of the third respondent and quash the same in so far as it pertains to the amendment of By-laws 2(h), 11, 14(a), 14(d), 16(i), 23, 25(1), 26(b), 33, 34, 36(D), 37(m), 38(1) and insertion of bye-law No.31(vii) as unconstitutional, ultra vires the parent Act, arbitrary, illegal and suffers from malice in law and therefore, liable to be declared as illegal, null and void and consequential direct the third and the fourth respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Secretary and Chief Executive of the third respondent Government Telecommunication Employees Co-operative Society ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Selvaraj Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajaji Salai, Flower ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to produce the properties namely 1) Employment ID Card, 2) Personal Diary, 3) Employment letters, 4) Photos and 5) Shoulder bag at the time of his arrest in Cr.No.75 of 2004 on the file of P.3 Police Station, Fort, Chennai 9.) 1. Mr.Selvaraj, Party-in-Person, is being represented by the legal aid panel Advocate Ms.Henrietha Chinnathambi. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for he having attempted to burn National Flag and the photo of Mahatma Gandhi and was convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment. He has undergone the sentence. 3. His grievance is, while he was arrested his identity card, his photo, employment card, employment letters and a personal diary contained in a jolna bag (shoulder bag) have been seized by the police. However, his said personal properties were returned to him. 4. In this regard, he has already filed a petition, which has been enquired into b...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar and Others Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.55 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.G.Lakshmi Narayanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties. 4. The counsel appearing on ei...
Tag this Judgment!Pastor I. Sathyaseelan Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.D.Dis.C3/10944/15 dated 27.12.2015 and the subsequent order passed by the fourth respondent dated 02.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant plan sanction to the petitioner's Penthacost Church situated in 11/94, Kanimadam, Anjugramam Post, Kanyakumari District and to pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The impugned order is very clear subsequent to the direction of the Mohan Commission, unless they get the permission from the District Collector, they cannot hold the Church proceedings. It is an admitted case that so far the petitioner has not obtained permission from the District Collector. Therefore, the authority has given the sufficient notice and passed the impugned order. Therefore, I do no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »