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.
C. Manickavasagam Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 04.08.2016.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent 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 th...
M. Ulagappan and Others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.15117 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the order bearing No:Na.Ka.8486/2015/A4 dated 07.12.2015 issued by the respondent and quashing the same and directing the respondent to issue a Kurumans Scheduled Tribe community certificate to the petitioner's daughter, namely U.Tamizhpavai, immediately.) Common Order M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The grant of Community Certificates by the competent authorities has now often become a cumbersome process and at times has paved way for multiple litigations and this batch of Writ Petitions is yet another case on the same lines. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions and the submissions of Mr. P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent and perused the relevant...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 and also the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent / Executive Officer of the Temple. 2. It comes to be known that the Petitioner in all had remitted / paid a sum of Rs.6,18,168/-, before the Fourth Respondent / Kattalai, which fact is not in dispute. 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has complied with the order of this Court, dated 12.07.2016, by paying a sum of Rs.6,18,168/-, and accordingly filed a 'Compliance Memo', dated 18.07.2016, before this Court and the same is hereby recorded by this Court. 4. Further, in the present case, it transpires that on 27.06.2016, the possession of the subject properties was taken by the Fifth Respondent / Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The Learned Co...
P. Venkatachalam Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical claim of Rs.1,72,483/- submitted by the petitioner with due interest for the belated payment.) 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition seeking to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical claim of Rs.1,72,483/- submitted by the petitioner, with due interest for the belated payment. 3. According to the petitioner, he was working as Forester, Shevaroys South Range, Salem Division, Salem-7. He underwent a heart surgery on 08.08.2013. He applied for reimbursement of Rs.1,72,483/- spent towards medical treatment as early as on 29.08.2013. However, no action was taken for reimbursement. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is on the verge of retirement and he is to retire on 30.09.2016 and that on account of the non-payment of...
Paulraj and Others Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal 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.98 of 2011 dated 12.02.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the above stated three accused as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1 and A3302 of IPC2A2 and A3302 r/w 109 of IPC3A1 to A3201 r/w 34 of IPC4A1506(2) of IPC By judgment dated 12.02.2015, the trial Court convicted these appellants / accused 1 to 3 for various offences as detailed below: ad>Rank of theAccusedPenal provision(s) under which convictedSentenceA1302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 201 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine...
Banana Brand Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavan Antani, Director, Bananabandy N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: O.A.No.1173 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of Exparte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from operating any business, making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing under the mark BANANA BANDY and/or any other mark deceptively similar for any services including advertising, Branding, Designing, Marketing services that amounts to passing off of the goods and services of the Defendants as though they are those of the Plaintiff. O.A.No.1174 of 2015:- Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of Exparte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from operating any business, makin...
S. Rajapadmanaban Vs. The Deputy Tahsildar, Office of the Registration ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 10.5.2016 for the notice given on 5.5.2016 by the third respondent with regard to the registration of Release Deed, dated 10.3.2016 and to pass orders within the time frame specified 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/husband, he presented a Release Deed with sufficient stamps before the Third Respondent/The Sub-Registrar, Andipatti Sub-Registrar's Office, Theni District on 10.3.2016. As a family arrangement, to avoid future problems among the members, his wife has released her rights in the properties and his ancestral origin and in his hotel business related properties. The Third Respondent has kept the regis...
S. Mohammed Ali Jinnah Vs. M. Gnanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.03.2016 made in I.A.No.3296 of 2016 in O.S.No.6976 of 2013 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3296 of 2016 in O.S.No.6976 of 2013 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.6976 of 2013 for recovery of possession and for mesne profit. 3. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court passed an exparte decree on 06.11.2014. Pursuant to the decree granted in O.S.No.6976 of 2013, the plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.3283 of 2015. Even in the Execution Petition, the defendant remained absent and hence, he was set exparte in the execution proceedings. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application before the Executing Court to set aside the order w...
AR.A.S. and P.V.P.V.Motors Erode Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 23.11.2011 in W.P.No.23242 of 2010.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Sundaravadanam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. It appears that as against the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal, raising the main ground that the core object of inventing the model ISUZU D-Max crew cab is to prevent the genuine users of the motor vehicle for having two separate vehicles for travelling and transporting the goods and to prevent pollution and that this vehicle is specially made with a combination of two in one model to suit the needs of the owners of the vehicle and therefore, the order of the Transport Commissioner classifying it under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act and defined as a transport vehicle cannot be sustained. 3. On a perusal of the records placed before this court, it is seen that t...
Sankaranarayanan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Princ ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordspertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rdrespondent in letter No.AG(A and E) legal Cell/WP(MD) 11094-11101/2008/1178 dated 17.9.2014 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay him pension by taking into account of service rendered by him prior to 01.06.1995 in the post of Village Assistant.) Common Order: Since the issue raised in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of, by this common order: 2. Challenging the orders of the third respondent dated 17.09.2014, in any by which, the request for revision of pension, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the benefit granted through W.P.(MD).No.11094-11101 of 2008 dated 06.03.2009 cannot be extended to the petitioners herein, as the petitioners therein, namely, W.P.(MD).No.11094-11101 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »