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.
J. Pari Usman Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
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 the provident fund and gratuity of Rs.5,96,199/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner I.e.on 30.04.2015.) 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 lear...
Tecpro Systems Limited Rep. by its Officer Venugopalan Tecpro Towers, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order of the writ court, made in W.P. No. 3611/2016 dated 22.02.2016, by which, the writ court, declined to entertain the writ petition, on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner Tecpro System Limited is a public limited company and represented by its Authorised Signatory/Principal Officer at Chennai. Prayer sought for in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi/respondent, not to take any coercive or any other steps against the petitioner, which is under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA), by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to a proceeding dated 20.01.2016 issued by the respondent. 3. Proceedings dated 20.01.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi reads as follows: "To The Princ...
Karthigaijothi Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai District and Another
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 impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1541/2016, dated 25.05.2016 (but signed on 26.05.2016) 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. According to the Petitioner, originally, the property in Survey No.126/5A4 belonged to one Pechiyammal, by means of registered Sale Deed. As a matter of fact, on 03.06.1963, one Seethalakshmi Ammal purchased the aforesaid property from Pechiyammal, by means of Sale Deed, bearing Document No.3468/1963. From the day one, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by mutating the Revenue Records in her favour. 5. When that be the facts situation, in the year 1998, the said Seethalakshmi Ammal sold the aforesaid property to one Arumugam...
S. Anthonysamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Office of the Taluk Office, Trichy D ...
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 respondents herein to issue the computerised patta to the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.138/1 situated at Theneripatti Village, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District in pursuance of the order passed by the first respondent in N.Ka.TK No.A/2/7225/2015 dated 27.11.2015 and on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2016 within the time zstipulated 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. 4. According to the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents to issue computerised patta to him, in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.138/1 situated at Theneripatti Village, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District, in pu...
Rethinam Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records culminated in the proceedings in R.C.A15456/2014, dated 03.11.2014 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, unenforceable , ultra-vires, without authority and without jurisdiction.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 13.07.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Karuppaiah Chettiar Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Another
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 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 5.10.2015 and 2.3.2016 for measuring and demarcating the petitioner's land putting Survey stones in Old Survey No. 41A/3 New S.No. 41 A/3 of No. 75, Kolakudi Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pudukkottai District.) 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 owns a land measuring an extent of 19 cents in Old Sy.No.41 A/3 and New Sy.No.41 A/3A by way of registered sale deed dated 10.07.2002, for 10 cents and for another 9.09.0 cents on its immediate south by means of registered sale deed dated 08.12.2003, in the same survey number. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that he wants to put up construction peacefully without any objection from any quarters. According to him...
Navajothi @ Jothi and Another Vs. State Represented by The Deputy Supe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.50 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent / complainant.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.50 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 429, 341, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2005 by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the...
P.N. Karuppagounder Vs. Eswari @ Chinnamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.04.2016 made in I.A.No.208 of 2012 in O.S.No.271 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District cum Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order in I.A.No.208 of 2012 in O.S.No.271 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District cum Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.271 of 2005 for declaration and permanent injunction. Subsequently, the defendants remained absent and an exparte decree was passed by the trial Court on 11.10.2010. Thereafter, the third defendant filed an application in I.A.No.208 of 2012 to condone the delay of 487 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. 3. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the third defendant had stated that the suit was posted for trial on 04.10.2010 and th...
M/s. Sankranti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, D. Velusamy Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent - Letter No.8325/UD1/2015-6, dated 31.05.2016 and the consequential communication of the second respondent in Letter No.ESI/11036/2008 dated 16.06.2016 and quash the same.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Challenging the order of the first respondent dated 31.05.2016 and the consequential communication of the second respondent dated 16.06.2016, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner, as averred in the writ petition is as follows: 2.1 The petitioner is a registered company and is carrying on the business of Hotels and Restaurants under the name and style of M/s.Sankranti Hotels. During the course of such business, the petitioner has entered into a lease deed dated 11.02.2011 with the third respondent in respect of the building premises at New No.552, Old No.135, T.T.K. Road, ...
Dhanaraj Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to issue the patta to the petitioner with regard to lands in Palayam Village S.No.139/2B situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.) 1. None appears for the Petitioner. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the Petitioner, the land in Palayam Village in S.No.139/2 belongs to one Rathinam and Andiyappan. Likewise, the lands in Palayam Village S.No.1398/2, S.No.142/1 and S.No.139/2, measuring to an extent of 84 cents belongs to himself, his mother and his brother, who are enjoying the same respectively. During the year 1994, there was exchange of deed between the Petitioner and his family members on one side and others on the other side and had executed an exchange deed whereby and where-under, the 'A' schedule property was allo...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »