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.
V. Angu Vs. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. The instant writ appeal arises from the order, dated 09.02.2012 made in W.P.No.16904 of 2011. 2. The averments of the writ petitioner in nutshell leading to the filing of this intra court appeal are that the appellant / petitioner has been cultivating as tenant in respect of 7 acres of land in S.No.1099 of Ootamalai village, Hokanakel Taluk for the past 25 years. The land belongs to the second respondent temple. His name is recorded as a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1965 (Act 10 of 1969) by the Record Officer, namely, Tahsildar, Pennagaram. The petitioner has paid the rent up to 29.02.2000. The subsequent rent tendered was refused by the second respondent, in view of the earlier writ petition. The appellant had to file earlier writ petition in W.P.No.4071 of 2001, challenging the auction conducted on 20.02.2001 by the second respondent and interim order was granted in that writ petition. The said writ petition was also dis...
P.M. Namachivayam Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Tran ...
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 Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement gratuity of Rs.3,71,341/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e.on 28.02.2013) 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 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Addit...
Kunjammal Vs. The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Pudukkottai
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 transfer the patta in the Petitioner's name from the name of the Petitioner's deceased husband Chinnachamy in respect of the property based on the Petitioner's application dated 2.5.2016 within the time stipulated 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 Respondents. 4. The Petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 2.5.2016 before the Respondent, The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk Office, Alangudi, Pudukkottai District seeking transfer of patta in her name from that of her deceased husband's name Chinnachamy. It appears that the said representation is pending for consideration in the hands of the Respondent. Till date, the same is not yet disposed of. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for by the Writ Pe...
S. Kaleeswaran Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
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 Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner in view of representation dated 04.07.2016.) 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 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obta...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having given clean chit against the charges impugned in the present Writ Petition on 27.09.2011, once again, the very same charge memo has been issued on the same set of allegation. Hence, he prayed for staying of the impugned order. 2. A reading of the proceedings dated 22.06.2016 issued by the second respondent bearing file No.47297/2010/H2 shows that the petitioner was subjected to the departmental proceedings for the same identical similar charges, in an earlier occasion also. Finally, the second respondent applying G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 16.07.1993 has dismissed all the charges levelled against the petitioner 'as not proved'. 3. prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has been again issued with the very same charge memo, to which, already clean chit has been given by the respondents. 4. In view of the above, notice through Court as well privately returnable by 22.08.2016. In the meanwhile, there shall be an order of...
State Bank of Mysore rep by its Branch Manager Vs. Abubacker and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order and decree order dated 03.11.2014 made in R.C.A.No.472 of 2013 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 28.06.2013 passed in R.C.O.P.No.509 of 2007 on the file of the XI Judge (Rent Controller), Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.472 of 2013 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.509 of 2007 on the file of the XI Judge (Rent Controller), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2.The respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C.O.P.No.509 of 2007 for fixation of fair rent. 3. According to the landlords, the agreed monthly rent was Rs.20,500/- and in the Rent Control Original Petition, they sought to fix the fair rent of Rs.1,48,333/- per month...
Mandeep Singah Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to condone the absence of the petitioner before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai on 01.06.2016, as per the order dated 22.12.2008 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2008 in C.A.No.205 of 2008.) 1. As against the dismissal of petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., to condone his absence on 01.06.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.1337 of 2016 in C.C.No.9 of 2005 on the file of learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai, this petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the accused. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of reasons beyond his control, the petitioner could not present himself on the said hearing date and he has filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., to condone his absence. As the trial Court could not overtake the directions of this Court it has dismissed the petition. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases submitted that...
N. Parnaba Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Another
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 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Notice of Election, dated 03.07.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct the election in view of rules framed under Sec. 5 of the Indian Red Cross Society Act and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli that by means of proceedings dated 16.07.2016, bearing Letter No.A5/2273/2016 of the second respondent, notice of election dated 03.07.2016 was revoked. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
V. Ramanan Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) ...
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 Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle amount, provident fund, earn leave salary, medical leave salary, retirement arrears amount, commutation, gratuity etc., with interest at the rate of not less than 10% from the date when the same balance due i.e.from 31.05.2016 till the date of actual payment to petitioner.) 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...
M. Krishnan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District R ...
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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 13.5.2016 for completing the enquiry pending before the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.7210/2013/Aa4, dated 27.11.2015 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and to cancel the joint patta and to issue the patta in the name of the Petitioner to the Petitioner's land in S.No.320/2 measuring an extent of 1 acre and 74 cents situated at Seevalsiraku Village, Athur Taluk, Dindigul District within the time stipulated 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 Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his father Muthuveeran had two brothers (1)Katalagan and (2)Vellaisamy and in fact, his father and Katalagan had died and the Petitioner is the legal heir of his father Mu...