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.
S. Suresh Kumar Vs. The Taluk Surveyor, Thoothukudi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned Notice in Survey boundary application No.193/2016, dated 14.07.2016, on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2. 4. Insofar as Respondent No.3 is concerned, to avoid an avoidable delay, Notice is dispensed with. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned Memo, dated 14.07.2016, issued by the Second Respondent / Taluk Sub-Inspector of Survey, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi, requiring the Petitioner to appear on 16.07.2016 at 10.00 a.m., for the purpose of measurement work, with necessary documents showing the rights, is an unlawful and illegal one because of the simple reason that, as per Section 15(2) ...
S. Sengkodi and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus, a. to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide all reliefs mandated under the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made under to the Villages Natham Colony Anna Nagar Colony and Kondampatti Old and New Colonies in Dharmapuri District b. direct the respondents 1 and 3 to engage Senior Officers known for their integrity independence and commitment to the cause of the weaker sections to monitor the measures being adopted by the lower level officials for rehabilitating the victims c. direct the 7th respondent to take over the investigation with regard to the atrocities committed by the members of the other community in the said Villages in Dharmapuri District; d. direct the respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 to give full co-operation to the 7th respondent in the investigation of the atrocity. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Con...
R. Sivasubramaniam Vs. State by, The Commissioner, Vigilance and Anti- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayers in Crl.O.P.No.4486 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper enquiry regarding with corrupt practice adopted by the respondents 3 and 4 by misusing their powers in so far relates to Crime No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kumaralingam Police Station, Kumaralingam, Madathukulam Taluk, Tiruppur District. Crl.O.P.No.11652 of 2016:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register FIR against the named said persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 22.02.2016.) 1. The present criminal original petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper enquiry in respect of the corrupt practice adopted by the respondents 3 and 4, in registering a case in Crime No.5 of 2016 against the petitioner herein; and also to direct the respondents-Police to register an FIR against the named sai...
Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards Private Limited, rep. By its Managing Direc ...
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 Respondent No.2 to sanction the insurance amount to the sum of Rs.2,87,85,380/-(Two Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Rupees only) to the petitioner in accordance with the insurance policy vide Policy no.0909001115P105647853 and Policy No.0909001115P105354933 along with 9% interest from the date of accident i.e. 07.11.2015 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016 within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, 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, he is the Managing Director of Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards Private Limited situate at Sinthapalli Village, Venkatachalapuram Post, Via Sattur, Virudhunagar District. He has insured his company as per Insur...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. The above application is filed by the first defendant, who is the only contesting defendant in the suit, for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of taking the original will dated 30.11.1998, which is marked as Ex.D13, along with the original registered will dated 11.06.1981 and the original registered settlement deed dated 23.03.1992, for comparison of the signature and thumb impression of Late Pattammal and to obtain a report of the expert from the Forensic Science Department, Chennai. 2. A will was executed in favour of the applicant on 30.11.1998 by Pattammal, who died on 19.02.2000. Based on the said will, the applicant had also filed a suit in O.S.No.94 of 2000, on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri, which was transferred to this Court and numbered as Tr.C.S.No.595 of 2003. No evidence had been let in by the parties and the evidence on the side of the applicant was closed on 29.09.2015. 3. While so, the plaintiff challenged the validity...
M. Shanmugasundaram Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(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 gratuity of Rs.4,15,107/- 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 Additional Advocate...
The Divisional Railway Manager/PL/MAS, Union of India, Southern Railwa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order, made in O.A.No. 154 of 2015, dated 28.04.2015, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, quashed the order, dated 24.11.2014, of Assistant Commercial Manager/I/MAS, Commercial Branch, Chennai Division, Chennai, 2nd appellant herein, transferring the 2nd respondent from Chennai Division to Salem Division. 2. Facts as per the case of the 2nd respondent are that on 01.04.2014, when he was on duty in Sampark Kranti Express train, he excessed the passenger, viz., Rasmi Gupta, for transfer of ticket, as she was travelling on the ticket issued in the name of one Abishek Nagar (M/22), along with two other passengers, viz., Swetank Sharma and Swati Bansal. Mother of Swathi Bansal prevented him, from claiming excess amount for transfer of ticket, as per the Railway rules in force, using the name of Ex. Railway Minister, Sri. Pawan Kumar Bansal and all of them threatened him, that he would face dire consequences. But the 2nd...
B. Annamalai Vs. State represented through the Inspector of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.805 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai dated 04.07.2016.) 1. Practically, this revision petition could be termed as petition to recall N.B.W. 2. There are 7 accused, who are being prosecuted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C.No.5 of 2015, for their alleged commission of certain economic offences. The personal appearance of the petitioner/A5 has been dispensed with by this Court, while disposing of his quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.12416 of 2011 and 648 to 650 of 2015. 3. In this case, trial has started. Prosecution witnesses are being produced. In the circumstances, on 16.06.2016, prosecution produced witness Nos.20 and 21. Since none has represented the petitioner/A5, not even his counsel was present, his absence was noted by the Court and N.B.W. ordered against A5. Consequently, the witn...
A.D. Padmasingh Isaac, Chennai and Another Vs. Achi Spice Products, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27(2), 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant for the following: (a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, or business name, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the same or similar mark ACHI MASALA or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark AACHI as shown in Document No.1 or in relation to any masala items and use the same pouches, packets or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is i...
M/s. Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited, Hyderabad Vs. The Union of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.08.2015 in Complaint No.3 of 2010, quash the same and further direct the second respondent to refund the excess amounts collected hitherto from the petitioner along with interest.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.08.2015 in Complaint No.3 of 2010 and to direct the second respondent to refund the excess amounts collected hitherto from the petitioner along with interest. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner-M/s.Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited has been promoted by C.V.R. Group of Companies and the petitioner-port was commissioned on 07.07.2008 with an outlay of Rs.1500 Crores for the first phase and Rs.4000 Crores for the second phase. It is stated that the pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »