Chennai Court June 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.
Selvi Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing S.No.640/3 measuring to an extent of 0.21.0 acres at Therisanamkoppu Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District, by the Petitioner, forthwith.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the property bearing S.No.640/3 measuring to an extent of 0.121.0 acres situated at Therisanamkoppu Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District is an agricultural property and originally belonging to the Government as 'Revenue Poramboke'. Indeed, 35 years before, the said property was given to the Petitioner by the respondents for the purpose of carrying out agricultural operation and thereby to eke out her livelihood. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitio...
Sujatha Fernando Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to any one of the Higher Secondary Schools under the control of the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 03.07.2015.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to any one of the Higher Secondary Schools under the control of the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 03.07.2015. 3. The petitioner was selected by the 5th respondent for the post of Computer Instructor. She was appointed by the 2nd respondent, by order dated 26.06.2012, and posted at Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Vikiramangalam, Madurai District. Subsequently, her services were regularized. The petitioner has submitted a rep...
S. Saibullahkhan Vs. Hairunisha Beevi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 24.03.2016 made in I.A.No. 259 of 2016 in O.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram and return the plaint for presentation in the Court. ) 1. Heard Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Barathan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in I.A.No.259 of 2016 in O.S.No.26 of 2008. The third defendant in the suit is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Facts in brief: The first respondent had instituted the suit on 09.04.2008 against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for declaration and permanent injunction. At the time of institution of the suit, the suit property was valued for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- and a sum of Rs. 10,125/- was paid for declaratory relief and a ...
Raja Vs. State, Rep. by its The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudukottai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by Learned District Munsif-cum-Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, in Cr.M.P.No.5370 of 2015, dated 14.12.2015 and set aside the same and direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate to give interim custody of the Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.TN-55-AFS-2442.) 1. This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)]. 2. The revision petitioner herein is A2 in this case. He is stated to have driven Hero Honda Splendor Plus (TN55 AFS2442) in Ponnamaravathi area to hunt Peacocks. The victim is a Peacock. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.97 of 2014. Seized the said two-wheeler. Produced it before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam. 3. In the said Court, the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5370 of 2015 for interim custody of the ...
M. Ayyankalai Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner without following due process of law on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2016.) 1. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 21.04.2016 to the respondents, requesting them not to harass him in respect of a civil dispute. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, the enquiry as against the petitioner is over and after closure of the enquiry, it has been sent for opinion of the legal experts. 4. Under such circumstances, there is no scope for calling the petitioner again to the respondent police either in the guise of enquiry or in the guise of anything else. Therefore, recording the submission made by the learned G...
Senthil Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.04.2016.) 1. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23.04.2016 to the 1st respondent directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in respect of a civil dispute. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer stated supra. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), enquiry has been conducted in this case and it has been subsequently closed on 14.03.2016. He has further submitted that since the complaint has already been closed, there is no scope for harassment at all. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
M/s. Kumaran Hardwares Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari (i) to call for the records of the impugned order of re-assessment in TIN.No.339180882644/2007-08 dated 30/1/2015 on the files of the first respondent herein and quash the same (WP.No.3334 of 2015); and (ii) to call for the records of the impugned notice in TIN.No.339180882644/2007-08 dated 30/1/2015 on the files of the first respondent herein and quash the same (WP.No.3335 of 2015).) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In W.P.No.3334 of 2015, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.1.2015, which is an order of re-assessment by determining the petitioner's turnover at Rs.51,43,654/-. The challenge in W.P.No.3335 of 2015 is to a notice issued by the first respondent dated 30.1...
Hema Manikandan Vs. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide all the death benefits of deceased N.Manikandan, who is the husband of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, the father of the 3rd petitioner herein and the son of the 4th petitioner herein, who died on 08.08.2008, while he was in service working as a Head Constable under the respondents herein, within a stipulated period of time, to and in favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 herein.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide all the death benefits of deceased N.Manikandan, who is the husband of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, the father of the 3rd petitioner herein, and the son of the 4th petitioner herein, who died on 08.08.2008, while he was in service working as a Head Constable under the respondents herein...
Pradeep Stainless India Private Limited, Represented by its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Management and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/caveator/Trade Union. 2. The appellant/Management challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.30389 of 2008 and 8902 of 2009, wherein, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the Management and directed the first respondent/Authority to number the Applications and take the same on file and permit the Management to file their counter statement and the workmen to file reply to the counter statement, if necessitated and thereafter proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. The challenge in the Writ Petitions was to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, the Authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act, dated 22.09.20...
Mani @ Anburaj and Others Vs. The State by Inspector of Police, Namakk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set-aside the conviction imposed in the judgment, dated 21.11.2013, made in S.C.No.96 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.96 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Namakkal. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against the accused, as detailed below:- ChargesAccusedSection of lawCharge No.1Accused 1 to 5148 I.P.C.,Charge No.2Accused 1 to 5302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,Charge No.3Accused 1 and 3307 I.P.C.,Charge No.4Accused 2, 4 and 5307 r/w 149 IPCCharge No.5Accused 4 and 5324 I.P.C.,Charge No.6Accused 1 to 3324 r/w 149 IPC2. By judgment, dated 21.11.2013, the trial Court convicted all the five accused, as detailed below:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA-1 to A-5U/s 148 IPCTo pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo thre...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »