Chennai Court July 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.
P. Navaneethan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Tra ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the retirement benefits including Provident Fund, Commuted Value of Pension and Leave Salary with interest at the rate of 18% per annum within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 t...
Meenakshi and Others Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Tiruverkad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur district in S.C.No.108 of 2012 dated 20.09.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.108 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 120 (B) I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.09.2013, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under both the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500 each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.500 each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 120(B) I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants a...
M/s. RIDSYS rep.by its Managing Partner S. Manikandan Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to impugned order No.34720019467/ADCTO-IAC/2015 dated 3.2.2015 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as highly illegal and arbitrary and against the procedure established by Puducherry Value added Tax Act, 2007.) 1. Ms.Reena Ishwarya, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) takes notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 3.2.2015 under the provisions of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the PVAT Act). 3. The petitioner is a firm registered under the provisions of the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner's manufacturing unit was inspected on 30.9.2014 by a Team of offici...
Mahalakshmi Vs. S. Anandakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer:Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Trichy and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Madurai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed for withdrawal of the case in H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2016 from the file of the Family Court, Trichy and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records. No representation for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The Marriage between them was solemnized on 08.02.2009. Out of the wedlock, they are blessed with two children. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a drunkard and he used to harass her in an inebriated mood at the instigation of his parents and even after police complaint and their advice, he never changed his attitude. On 03.05.2016, she...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
1. Today, the Second Respondent/Contemnor is present before this Court. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Respondents that some time may be granted to comply with the order. Already this Court had granted time till 20.07.2016 to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014. Further, it was also ordered that if the Second Respondent/The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Lalgudi, Ariyalur District fails to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition before 20.7.2016, then he/she was directed to appear in person on 21.7.2016 and to explain as to why further action should not be taken in the subject- matter in issue. 3. When the matter is listed today I.e., on 25.7.2016, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that some more time may be granted to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014, dated 5.11.2014. Further, it is also represented that as against the order made W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014, dated 5.11.2014, a...
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 22.12.2014 made in W.P.No.11739 of 2007(T) on the file of this Court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Judge in a writ petition filed by the first respondent. 2. Heard Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, Mr.N.Subramanian, Party-in-Person and Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The first respondent joined the service as B.T. Assistant in the year 1953 and was later promoted as Head Master in the year 1966. On 10.7.1983, he retired from service voluntarily. His qualifying service was 30 years and 14 days for the purpose of pension. His pension was revised under G.O.Ms.No.449, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.10.1999 and payment of arrears thereof was made in October/November 2002. After coming to know about G.O.Ms.No.1108, PandAR Department, dated 18.12.1997, wherein it is stated tha...
K. Guruchandran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.P2-11570-2015 dated 07.10.2015 and the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in ( Tamil ) 7/2016 dated 20.06.2016 and quash the same as void and illegal and consequentially to direct the 4th respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.06.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in Sy.No.138/1 measuring an extent of 1089 sq.ft in Amaravathi Village, Amaravathi Pudur Group, Karaikudi, Joint II Sub Registrar, Karaikudi Registration District, was owned by one Mr.Mariappan, who purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2014 on the file of the 4th respondent's office. As a matter of fact, he purchased the pr...
G. Thavasumani Vs. The Chairman, State Level Environment Impact Assess ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Clearance Certificate to the Petitioner for conducting quarry operation in the Petitioner's land in S.F.No.165(P) to an extent of 1.47 Acres in Kalkulam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 22.7.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
The Janab. O.K.N.Mohammed of Saliqu President of Masjid Baharsha Oliyu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifide Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice issue by the 4th respondent, dated 01.06.2016 in his Na.Ka.g.s.340/Va.Ka.Thanjai/N1.A/2016, the resolution of 2nd respondent dated 18.02.2016 in na.ka.No.5708/15/aa7/Thanjai and the Notification Rc.No.5708/15/B7/TNJ No.VI-3(a)/4/2016 17.03.2016 published in the gazette by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the election to the Jamath.) 1. None appears for the Petitioner. 2. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 and the Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent and noticed their contentions. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is the President of the 'Masjid Baharsha Oliyulla Mosque', Mahilambu Thaikkal, Main Road, Rajakiri. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Res...
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.2.2014 passed in W.P.No.2856 to 2859 of 2014 on the file of this court.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to consider for grant of patta to the respondents herein. 3. The factual matrix behind these writ appeals is as under:- The lands, for which the respondents herein seek patta, originally belonged to one K.C.Murugesa Naicker, who obtained sanction for a lay out of his lands in the year 1974. Out of the same, some plots reached the respondents, they being the successive purchasers. The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act came into force on 17.5.1978 whereupon, proceedings were initiated under the said Act against the original owner viz., Murugesa Naicker. Since the original owner had already sold all the plots to third parties and he had no interest over...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »