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 Government of Puducherry Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Department o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. The present writ appeal is to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, dated 17.07.2012 made in W.P.No.21095 of 2011. 2. The averments of the respondents / writ petitioners in nutshell are as follows : (i) The petitioners are rice millers in Union Territory of Puducherry. The second respondent had entered into statutory contract with the millers for procurement of single boiled rice, as per Clause 3 of Puducherry Paddy and Rice Procurement (levy) Order, 1996. The petitioners undertook to sell to the Government at the rate acceptable to both parties. The millers supplied single boiled rice under 50% levy system. On 18.08.2010, Government of Puducherry, issued G.O.Ms.No.17, fixing the guidelines for the proper implementation of the levy system. (ii) The Government directed in that G.O., as follows : "(a) Food Corporation of India shall be agent to the Union of Puducherry for procurement of rice from rice millers. (b) Levy procurement rice shall be at the rat...
The Government of Puducherry Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Department o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court, dated 17.07.2012 made in W.P.No.21095 of 2011.) Judgment: P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. The present writ appeal is to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, dated 17.07.2012 made in W.P.No.21095 of 2011. 2. The averments of the respondents / writ petitioners in nutshell are as follows : (i) The petitioners are rice millers in Union Territory of Puducherry. The second respondent had entered into statutory contract with the millers for procurement of single boiled rice, as per Clause 3 of Puducherry Paddy and Rice Procurement (levy) Order, 1996. The petitioners undertook to sell to the Government at the rate acceptable to both parties. The millers supplied single boiled rice under 50% levy system. On 18.08.2010, Government of Puducherry, issued G.O.Ms.No.17, fixing the guidelines for the proper implementation of the levy system. (ii) The Government directed in that G.O., as follows : "(a) Fo...
Sundarraj Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu ...
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 first respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal dated 20.3.2015 by affording personal hearing to the Petitioner 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 Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner his appeal, dated 20.3.2015 is pending before the First Respondent as on date. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition for passing of an order by this Court to dispose of his appeal, dated 20.3.2015 by affording personal hearing to him within the time frame to be determined by this Court. 5. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's appeal, dated 20.3.2015 is pending before the First Respondent without any progress or disposal, till date, this Court without expressing any opinion on the m...
A. Mohamed Sirajudeen and Others Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil ...
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 representations dated 11.07.2016.) 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 obt...
Arumugam and Others Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tindivanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction imposed by judgment dated 16.09.2015 made in S.C.No.48 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.48 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram. They stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 380, 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 16.09.2015, the Trial Court convicted them under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 449 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 ye...
Arunachalam Dhandayuthapanni Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the respondent for wanton and willful violation of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.81 of 2016 vide order dated 06.01.2016.) 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for wanton and willful violation of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.81 of 2016, dated 06.01.2016. 2. Originally, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23716 of 2015 before this Court seeking to direct the respondent-Police to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 28.10.2015 given by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is a Managing Trustee of Arunachalam Dhandayuthapanni Trust situated in Sathiyamanglam, Erode District. The said Trust is having lot of properties in and around Sathiyamangalam and the subject property at Door No.14, Sunnambukkara Street at Sathiyamangalam also belongs to the said Trust. T...
M/s. PVP Ventures Limited, rep. by its Head of Finance and Accounts Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in C.W.1/1/148/AAFCA0242C/2016-17 dated 10.6.2016 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1951 dated 16.3.2016 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.) 1. Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Arunkurian Joseph, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged a notice issued by the respondent to M/s.AGS Hotels and Resorts Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s.AGS) stating that he has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009-10 escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Further, the respondent proposed to assess/re-assess the income for the said assessment year and directed the said company to de...
M.S. Arunkhumar Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court under SC and ST [POA] Act, Thanjavur District to consider his bail application on his surrender on the same day in respect of Crime No.298 of 2016 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Myladuthurai, Sembanarkoil Police Station, Nagapattinam District.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court under SC and ST [POA] Act, Thanjavur District to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day on his surrender in Crime No.298 of 2016 pending on the file of the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294[b], 506[ii] and 307 IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 and Sec...
M. Rajendran Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to delete the wrong entry made in the petitioner's Patta Passbook No.16464 by dispose and pass final orders on his application u/s. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, dated 16.02.2016 within the time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 4. According to the petitioner, he had purchased a land at Pitchandar Koil Village in Natham Sy.No.115/2A, 2R and new Survey No.115/23 in the year 1981, measuring an extent of 23/8 cents and obtained a patta in the year 2002. When that be the facts situation, wrongly his wife's name viz., Malarkodi and his brother (late) Shanmugam's wife's name viz. (Late) Lakshmi were included in the patta and hence, he prayed for removing their names by pres...
Mohamed Sultan Maraicar Vs. The Special Secretary, Government of Puduc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for a certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent culminated in G.O. Ms. No. 36, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management dt on 5.10.2010 in the Gazette of Puducherry and the consequent G.O.Ms. No.62 Department of Revenue and Disaster Management dt 2.3.2011 in the Gazette of Puducherry, insofar as the schedule mentioned property is concerned and quash the entire acquisition proceedings. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 23 Ares 50 centiares of Nanja land situated at No. 31, Neravy Village and comprised in R.S. No. 182/3B, having purchased the same from one Mr.Abdul Sukkur by way of a sale deed dated 08.09.2009 and registered as Doc. No. 1139 of 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neravy. According to him, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. By notification dated 05.10.2010 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an extent of 11 Ares and...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »