Chennai Court April 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.
Tamilnadu Electricity Board, rep. by Chief Engineer/Personnel Office o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the seventh respondent made in Computation Petition No.15 of 2012, dated 31.07.2013, and quash the same.) This Writ Petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its Chief Manager, and the Superintending Engineer of Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle. 2. The undisputed facts are as follows : 2.1. Respondents 1 to 5 were all Ex-servicemen. After discharge from defence service, they applied for appointment in the petitioner Board through Ex-servicemen Welfare Association. They were appointed as Watch and Ward on contract basis for a period of three years on 10.09.1997. Thus, on and after September,2000, they had no right to continue in the job. However, on 19.06.2000, they submitted an application before the Inspector of Labour, seeking permanency. Parallelly, they moved this Court by way ...
State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charita ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the results he reached, but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end and dedication to the Court as an institution. Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But, he taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process (New York Times Editorial The Frankfurter Legacy, on September 2, 1962). 1. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Secretary, Political Department, Government of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong Vs. High Court of Meghalaya through its Registrar, Shillong [Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 2016 dated 18.3.2016] began with the above quote. In the said decision, the Supreme court reminded all the Judges of this country about th...
Joseph Vs. Michael and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 27.08.2015, made in I.A.No.290 of 2015 in O.S.No.141 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai.) (Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.09.2015, made in I.A.No.328 of 2015 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai.) Common Order: Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of both parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.2425 of 2015 is the defendant in O.S.No.151 of 2010 and appellant in A.S.No.8 of 2015. The respondent is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2010, for declaration and permanent injunction. The said Suit was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.8 of 2015 o...
M. Arulmani Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd and 3rd respondent from erecting the overhead water tank up to three feet nearer to the petitioner s house in Door No.6/281 in survey No.1126/19 in patta No.24 at Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi Village Vedasandur Taluk Dindigul district and consequently direct them to erect overhead water tank in an alternative place in Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi village Vedasndur Taluk Dindigul district and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to forbear the 2nd and 3rd respondent from erecting the overhead water tank up to three feet nearer to the petitioner s house in Door No.6/281 in survey No.1126/19 in patta No.24 at Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi Village Vedasandur Taluk Dindigul district and consequently direct them to erect overhead water tank in an alternative place in Samimu...
Karthikeyan and Others Vs. Revathi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case pending in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindgiul within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case pending in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Taking into consideration the volume of work of the Trial Court, this Court directs the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 pending on its file within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of....
A. Babu Packiaraj Vs. The Commissioner, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.2, Kaveri Store, Corporation Building, Bharathiyar Salai, Opp to Railway Junction, Trichy, without due process of law and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.2, Kaveri Store, Corporation Building, Bharathiyar Salai, Opp to Railway Junction, Trichy without due process of law. 2. According to the petitioner, his father is the original allottee. His father died and thereafter his son, namely, the petitioner herein, is in occupation and enjoyment of the said shop. According to him, the only dispute is that the portion occupied by him is 488.75 Sq.ft. but as per the Corporation it is mentioned as 720. Sq.ft. Further it is contended that a...
Pondicherry Contract Carriage Owners' Association rep. by its Presiden ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for in (i) WP No.22011 of 2012 - a writ of Declaration declaring Section 5 by which the proviso is added to Section 6 of the Principal Act to the effect that "To Section 6 of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be added namely:- "Provided that in respect of contract carriages specified in the Ninth Schedule such temporary licence may be issued on payment of tax at the rates specified in the Ninth Schedule" and also the consequential introduction of Clause (c) of the Ninth Schedule introduced in Tamil Nadu Act 13/2012 as ultra vires Article 14, 19(1)(d), 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India as void; (ii) WP No.28941 of 2014 - a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from collecting Motor Vehicles Tax per entry in respect of petitioner's contract carriages bearing Registration Nos. KA-01/D-5678, KA-01/AA-5274 and KA-01/6912 when once the motor vehicles tax as prescribed in the Schedule has been p...
Sathishkumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son in law detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 30.9.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No. 1073/2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's son in law, namely, Palani son of Kuppusamy aged 49 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son in law at liberty from detention now the petitioner's son in law detained at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the son of the detenu, namely, Palani, aged 49 years, son of Kuppusamy, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No. 1073/2015, dated 30.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Secti...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, these matters have come up for hearing under the caption "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stating that the collection amount has been wrongly furnished by him as Rs.14,00,000/- which meant for both 'Pay and Use Toilet' as well as 'Cloak Room', but the actual amount to be furnished is Rs.10,00,000/- only in respect of 'Cloak Room'. 2. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the amount should be only for the 'Cloak Room' and in such a case, only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be collected by the Corporation. Therefore, a typographical error made in the order as per the representation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as Rs.14,00,000/- is wrong, as admitted by both parties. 3. Today, to show his bona fides, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- which is the actual amount payable even on demand by the Corporation through Demand Draft. Therefore, in the order dated 11.03.2016 in paragraphs 2 and 3, the amoun...
Mohan Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 03.09.2015 made in Crl.R.P.No.11/2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the order dated 09.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.130/2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, to set aside the same and direct the respondent to release the vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. TATA Ace bearing Registration No.TN 73 F 9340 to the petitioner herein.) 1. This petition is filed for setting aside the order dated 03.09.2015 made in Crl.R.P.No.11/2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the order dated 09.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.130/2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram and also for issuing a direction to the respondent to release the vehicle: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. TATA Ace bearing Registration No.TN 73 F 9340 to the petitioner herein. 2. The ...