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.
The State represented by: The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2014 in Special Case No.69 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Villupuram.) 1. This revision petition is filed by the State as against the order passed by the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Villupuram, dated 13.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2014 in Special Case No.69 of 2014, in discharging the respondent/accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. from the charge under Sections 7, 9, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused was Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Pandiankuppam Village from 12.10.2012 to 28.05.2013 and he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act during the relevant point of time. In the year 2011, the de-facto ...
St. Mary's High School, Kuthukalvalasai, Tenkasi, Represented by its C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders for granting salary grant for the teachers of the Petitioner School for the period from 1.6.1997 to 8.6.1998 by correctly appreciating the students strength based on the records by considering the appeal petition submitted by the Petitioner School dated 11.4.2016, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 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 Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner/School, its representation/appeal petition, dated 11.4.2016 addressed to the Second Respondent/The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006 is pending in the subject-matter in issue without any progress or disposal till date. 5. It appears that the Petitioner in the representation/appeal...
M/s. T.M.J. Textile and Readymades, Rep. by its Proprietor M. Jeyaraja ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TIN 33275881926/2014-15 of the respondent dated 14.8.2015 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording a opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 22(4) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act 2006.) 1. The Writ petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after the assessment order was passed on 14.08.2015, the respondent has subsequently passed a distraint notice dated 08.03.2016 stating that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.2,53,705/- towards tax amount and penalty to the tune of Rs.3,80,705/-, totalling a sum of Rs.6,34,262/-. It is further stated that out of the said amount the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.11,234/...
S. Muthalagu Vs. The Tahsildar, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.3.2016 submitted for demarcation of the property comprised in Pula No.298/4, situated at Thiruvalluvar Group, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District in the light of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2009 and the Commissioner's report, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 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 Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, in order to demarcate the property referred to above, he made a representation, dated 24.3.2016 to the Respondent requesting him to demarcate the property in question and also to carry out necessary amendment in the FMB in the light of the decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2009 and the Commissioner's report. 5. In f...
M. Narayanaswamy Vs. P. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Praye: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.07.2015 in E.A.No.131 of 2013 in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in O.S.No.1033 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur.) 1. The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.131 of 2013 in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in O.S.No.1033 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur, the Judgment Debtor/defendant is the revision petitioner and the respondent is the Decree Holder/plaintiff. 2.The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1033 of 1997 for declaration and for recovery of possession. 3.After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.1033 of 1997. As against the judgment and decree passed in the suit, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri and the Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court ...
M. Selvaraju and Others Vs. Union of India, through Rep. by the Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, to call for the records of the 6th respondent in O.A.No.310/00668/2016, dated 29.06.2016 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition is directed as against the order, dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) in O.A.No.310/00668/2016. 2. The petitioners / applicants are working in various capacities in BSNL, aspiring the promotion as Joint Accounts Officers. The respondents 1 to 5, without mentioning year wise vacancy details declared vacancy position of Joint Accounts Officers. The respondents 1 to 5 also followed the system of exemption. The petitioners appeared in the Junior Accounts Officer Part II Examination held in the year 2012 and though qualified, they have not been promoted for want of vacancy. Now for the promotion to the post of Joint Accounts Officers, t...
M.A. Ameerudeen Vs. The District Collector, Ex-officio President, Indi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(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 Notice of Election dated 03.07.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the conduct of election Tirunelveli Branch, Indian Red Cross Society and quash the same and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct election in accordance with the uniform rules of the Indian Red Cross Society with an observer to be deputed by 3rd respondent to supervise the conduct of the election.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Temporary Chairman, Indian Red Cross Society, Tirunelveli that the notice of election dated 03.07.2016, issued by the second respondent was revoked, as per proceedings bearing Letter No.A5/2273/2016, dated 16.07.2016. 2. As such, the present writ petition, in the considered opinion, has become an infructuous one. 3. Recording the said proceedings of the ...
V. Nagappan and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: W.P.(MD).Nos.12695 and 12696 of 2016: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the respondents in computing the gratuity, Leave salary payable to the petitioners by taking into account the dearness allowance payable on their basic pay plus grade pay at the rate of 90% instead of 100% as illegal and contrary to G.O.(MS) No.55, Transport (D) Department dated 04.06.2014 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and consequently direct the respondent to compute and pay them the difference amount in Gratuity, Leave Salary by taking into account revised rate of dearness allowance I.e.at the rate of 100% of pay + Grade Pay as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.55 Transport (D) Department dated 04.06.2014.) 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petition...
Shiyamaladevi Vs. The Commissioner cum Director, Animal Husbandry Medi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3217/Aa/2010 dated 03/02/2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same consequently directing the respondent to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioners husband E.Govindan who was working as a Inspector Animal Husbandry Department to the proceedings in O.Mu.No.62631/GG2/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Veerabhadran and Others Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Krishnag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.127 of 2009 dated 09.07.2015.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.464 of 2015 is the first accused, the appellants in Crl.A.No.459 of 2015 are the accused 6 and 9, the appellant in Crl.A.No.462 of 2015 is the seventh accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.460 of 2015 is the eight accused in S.C.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. Including these appellants, there were a total number of ten accused in the case. The trial Court has framed as many as three charges as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1302 of IPC2A2 to A10176 of IPC3A2 to A10302 r/w 201 of IPC One accused by name Devaraj died during the trial and thus the charges framed against him stands abated and the array of the accused ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »