Chennai Court June 2016 Judgments
S. Manimaran, Proprietor, M/s. Manimaran Transport Vs. The Managing Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.MT 10/11777/2015 dated 20.05.2016 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to award the contract to the petitioner for Transportation of Stocks for Non-FCI movement for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 without reference condition relating to the criminal cases. 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 28.06.2016, to the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid letter, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!V. Rengaraj Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents from terminating the petitioner from working in the capacity of poojari at Arulmigu Vellaimuneeswarar Thirukovil, situated in Ganatharvakottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District, without following the due process of law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a hereditary Poojari of the 'Arulmigu Vellaimuneeswarar Temple' and originally it was owned by the Zameen of Pudukkottai Samasthanam. After amalgamation of the Zameen with the Pudukkottai State, the said Temple is under the administrative control of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 5. The specific case of the Petitioner is that after demise of his father...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankara Varman Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records and set aside the order passed by the Mahila Court, Chennai, (viz., to recall of P.W.1 was dismissed) in Crl.M.P. No.4532 of 2016 dated 18.04.2016 in S.C. No.433 of 2013.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Mahila Court, Chennai, dismissing Crl.M.P. No.4532 of 2016 with regard to recall of P.W.1. 2. A vignette of the facts leading to the filing of this petition is as under: In respect of an attempt to rape a 14 year old girl by name Elastha Keerthana, a case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2013 and after investigation, the police filed a final report in S.C. No.433 of 2013 before the Mahila Court, Chennai against the petitioner for offences under Section 341, 342, 323, 354, 294 and 376 read with Section 511 and 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 201...
Tag this Judgment!Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Arokya Food Products and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
O.A.No.1145 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner passing off its products as that of the applicant by using the offending trademark ''AROKYA'' or any other trademark which is similar or deceptively similar to that of the applicant's trademark ''AROKYA'' either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or in anyway advertising the same either as trademark or as trade name or in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. O.A.No.1146 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the applicant's registered trade mark ''AROKYA'' as described in the schedule hereunder by using the offending trademark ''AROKY...
Tag this Judgment!Vadivambal Vs. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2011 dated 11.06.2011 and to file final report within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2011 dated 11.06.2011 and to file final report. 2. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), after completing the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2011, a final report has already been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai on 13.10.2012, closing the case as mistake of fact. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. It is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Tag this Judgment!R. Kottursamy Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned auction notice for fishery rights in K.No.9Ko.29/E.Po/Karupanadhi dated 13.06.2016 passed by the 6th respondent in so far as the Miscellaneous Properties 10, 14 and 16 are concerned and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the auction slated on 27.06.2016 at 12.00 noon was not held and it was postponed indefinitely. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that on 20.06.2016 in W.P.(MD).No.10806 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, this Court had directed the fourth respondent/Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Chittar Basin Division, Tenkasi, Kutralam to look into the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.06.2016, within 5 days from the date of receipt of a cop...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Agencies, HPCL Dealer, Rep. by its Prop. S. Gajendran Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned advertisement published in The Hindu Newspaper dated 21.9.2013 by the 2nd to 5th respondents for appointment of LPG Distributors in Korattur Ambattur Taluk Thiruvallur District (Sl. No.109) and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st to 5th respondents herein to allot LPG distributorship in Korattur Ambattur Taluk Thiruvallur District (Sl. No.109) or in any location in Tamil Nadu to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions, are the Kerosene Wholesale Dealers. All of them have been aggrieved by the respective Notifications issued by the Oil Corporations, viz., M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (HPCL), M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), in and by which, calling for the applications for appointment of LGP Distributors unde...
Tag this Judgment!Shahees Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, in S.C.No.247 of 2013 dated 22.12.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.247 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai. He stood charged for offences under Sections 376(f)(g), 324 and 506(i) of IPC and Sections 5(g) and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [In short, the POCSO Act ]. The trial court, by judgement dated 22.12.2014, convicted the accused under Section 5(g) and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 324 of IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Sections 376(f)(g) and 506(i)of IPC. For the offence under Section 324 of IPC, the trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and f...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kannan Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to issue a Patta to the extent of 3.41.5, 0.40.0 Ares bearing Survey No.35 situated at Nanjai Mangudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai Distirct.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is in possession of wet land bearing Sy.No.35, measuring about 3.41.5, 0.40.0 ares in door No.31, Mangudi Village, Poovattakudi Post, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. From the year 1987, he is in possession of the land and he is cultivating the said land ever since 30.09.1987. For every fasli, he had paid the amount demanded by the Government. As such, he is in possession and enjoyment of the land for the past 30 years. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had approached the first and second respondents several times seeking issuance ...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. However, this Court has heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing the respondent. 2. The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing the respondent submits that as per the direction of this Court issued in W.P.(MD).No.18020 of 2014, dated 10.11.2014 and the recommendation of the Special Tahsildar (SSS), Thovalai, Kanyakumari District, a proposal, for sanctioning a sum of Rs.92,500/- i.e a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards accident relief and Rs.2,500/- towards personal expenses to the petitioner for the death of her husband, was sent to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, as per the respondent's Office letter dated 29.12.2014 and the same was informed to the petitioner, through a registered communication dated 29.12.2014. It appears that the Commissioner of Land Reforms has also sent the said proposal to the Government for sanctioning the aforesaid amount towards the petitioner, as per letter dated 12.03.2015. 3. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »