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.
G. Senthilkumar Vs. The Executive Officer, Tirunelveli District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent pertaining to its order in Na.Ka.No.45/2016, dated 18.07.2016, and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to grant plan approval to the petitioner by considering the application of the petitioner dated 30.04.2016 for the construction put up by the petitioner in the property in S.No.1/38A, situated at Mekkarai Village, Tirunelveli District.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the notice dated 18 July, 2016, whereby and whereunder, the Executive Officer, First Grade Town Panchayat, Achanpudur, Tirunelveli District, called upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within seven days, failing which, it was indicated that further action would be taken in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was gi...
R. Ramkumar and Another Vs. The District Collector, Office of the Dist ...
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 to directing the second respondent to issue token to take Clay Sand in S.No.28 with an extent of 3.52.0 Hectares of Government Poramboke in Kunnur Village in Andipatti Taluk, as per the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.44/Mines/2014, dated 10.6.2016.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Selvam Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Others
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 Mandamus directing the First Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 22.2.2016 on merits and in accordance with law and subsequently dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court forthwith.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. At this stage, Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2. 3. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the Respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with. 4. The Petitioner has focussed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvel,i to consider his representation, dated 22.2.2016 on merits and in accordance with Law and later to dispose of the same within the time frame to be determined by this Court. 5. According to the P...
Saraswathi Narayanan College (Autonomous), Perungudi, Madurai Rep. by ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.F 2-28(15)2007(AC), dated 07.12.2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to retain its autonomous status.) 1. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order passed by the first respondent dated Nil, April, 2016 vide proceedings bearing No.2-28(15)/2007(AC/Review) by which the autonomous status for the petitioner institution has been granted for the period from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. The autonomous states was also recognised for the period from 2013-2014 to 2014-2015 by ex-post-facto approval. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Having regard to th...
Y.J. Binu Shalin Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for entire records relating to the rejection of petitioner's application dated 28.12.2015 by the second respondent's order through their official website on 22.01.2016 and quash his order of rejection and direct the second respondent to conduct the Written Examination afresh for the petitioner and consider the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as notified in Second Respondent's Notification No.001 dated 13.12.2015.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the entire records of the second respondent relating to the order of rejection of his application dated 22.01.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct written examination afresh for the petitioner and consider him for appointment ...
Mahendra Singh Ranka Vs. State by: The Deputy Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and to set aside the order passed by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1685 of2 015 in C.C.No.9 of 2015, dated 11.01.2016, and to direct the respondent to furnish the translated Hindi Version of the statement of witnesses and the documents in Tamil relied on by the respondent.) 1. This Revision has been filed as against the order dated 11.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1685 of 2015 in C.C.No.9 of 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the respondent to furnish Hindi version of the statements of the witnesses and the documents in Tamil, relied on by the respondent, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in the criminal case in C.C.No.9 of...
A. Jothiramalingam and Another Vs. The Executive Officer / Joint Commi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Common Judgment S.S. Sundar, J. 1. These Review Applications are filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.21429 to 21433 of 2015 challenging the final order passed by this Court on 15.04.2016. 2. Since several grounds are raised relating to mistake of fact and error apparent in the previous judgment of this Court with reference to the findings recorded by this Court, we proceed to deal with these cases, after narrating the facts and events with reference to the documents filed before us so as to consider the points raised herein effectively. 3. The petitioners have filed W.P.(MD)No.21429 to 21433 of 2015 for issuing writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein from evicting the petitioners from their shops situated in Survey No.878/1 and other subdivisions of S.No.878. The facts disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions has to be briefly summarised as under: 3.1. All the petitioners have constructed shops and are running business. All the shops are loc...
M. Gomathinayagam Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to repair petitioner's water supply connection pipe line in petitioner's water fee assessment number 153 by considering the representation of the petitioner's dated 03.06.2016.) 1. Mr.M.Gomathinayagam, is a resident of Gandhiji second street, Tirunagar, Madurai. He applied for water connection from the erstwhile Tirunagar Town Panchayat by paying requisite fee. His assessment number is 153 and accordingly, water connection was given in the month of October 2006. While so, the water was not properly supplied from 31.05.2007, still, the respondent demanded water tax from the petitioner, forcing him to file a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.3577 of 2015, wherein, an interim order was passed. While so, on 01.08.2015, the water connection pipe was damaged by Corporation drainage contractors. Since the request of the petitioner to restore the water connecti...
K. Subramanian Vs. S. Srivastha Prakash and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-Magisterial Level-II, Egmore, Chennai, to retain C.C.Nos. 2596, 2597, 2346, 2349, 2345, 2344 and 2347 of 2012 and proceed with cases.) Common Order: 1. These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-Magisterial Level-II, Egmore, Chennai, to retain C.C. Nos. 2596, 2597, 2346, 2349, 2345, 2344 and 2347 of 2012 and proceed further. 2. Mr. K. Subramanian, who is the petitioner herein, is the accused in C.C.Nos.2596, 2597, 2346, 2349, 2345, 2344 and 2347 of 2012 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-Magisterial Level-II, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that have been launched by the respondents herein. 3. Heard Mr. A.M.R. Rahamath Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sami, lear...
M/s. Pee Yes Yem Hk Holdings Private Limited Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956 to confirm the reduction of share capital.) 1. This is a petition filed under Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 to obtain sanction of this court qua its prayer for reduction of share capital obtaining in the books of M/s.Pee Yes Yem Hk Holdings Private Limited (hereafter referred to as the petitioner company). 2. The captioned petition, along with an application being: CA No. 481/2016, came up before this court for hearing, for the first time, on 29.04.2014. This court, on that date, for the reasons given in the order of even date, dispensed with the procedure laid down in Section 101(2) of the 1956 Act. Accordingly, CA No. 481/2016 was disposed of. 2.1. Furthermore, in so far as the captioned petition is concerned, notice was issued to the Regional Director (in short the RD), which was accepted. Direction was also issued for serving a copy of the petition on the Registrar of Companies (in short ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »