Chennai Court July 2016 Judgments
C. Selvamani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to expeditiously dispose of the Petitioner's appeal, dated 06.10.2015, within a reasonable time, as maybe fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his Appeal, dated 06.10.2015, is pending before the Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, till date, without any disposal. It appears that summons was issued in connection with an enquiry, on 13.11.2015, till date, no enquiry was conducted inasmuch as one Gokuldoss had not produced the title deed. Thereafter, there was no summons was issued or enquiry conducted, as regards the pending Appeal. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Considering the fact that the Peti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Murali Vs. State Level Scrutiny Committee Rep. by its Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the verification of community certificate issued by R.D.O.Tiruchirapalli dated 11.04.1994 vide A4/9765/9304 No.2692060 as indicated by the communication of the 2nd respondent in R.C.A4/1308/2014 dated 18.08.2014 for the issuance of community certificate to the petitioner's children viz., M.G.Vibichandra and M.G.Vishwachandra that they belong to Kattunayakan (ST) community.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the verification of community certificate issued by R.D.O., Tiruchirapalli dated 11.04.1994 vide A4/9765/9304 No.2692060 as indicated by the communication of the 2nd respondent in R.C.A4/1308/20...
Tag this Judgment!Amaravathi Spinning Mills Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to effect reduction of the existing sanctioned demand from 800KVA to 30KVA to the petitioner's industry vide their application dated 12.01.2016 and 04.03.2016 in their HT SC No.19 on payment of necessary charges.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Note: Issue order copy today....
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gopal Engineering Works, Chennai Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN: 33381084488/2013-14, quash the notice, dated 26.04.2016 issued therein and further direct the respondent to refund the excess tax amount of Rs.39,33,672/- in terms of the assessment order in TIN: 33381084488/2013-14 dated 04.06.2015.) 1. Heard Mr. P.V. Sudakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act, 2006) has challenged the notice issued by the respondent dated 26.04.2016, which are based on certain queries raised by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Zone No.III, Chennai 600 006. 3. The undisputed facts are that, for the assessment year 2013-14, the responde...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kamachi Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents by considering the petitioner's Representation dated 21.07.2016 and to release his Terminal Benefits with interest 1. Gratuity 2)Earn Leave surrender amount 3. DA Arrears 4. Commutation and other pay settlement benefit amount as he retired on superannuation by 31.07.2015.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking her retirement benefits, she 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,...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arif Vs. S. Muthaiah and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai to expedite the proceedings in I.A.No.580 of 2015 in O.S.No.363 of 2011 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision is filed seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, to dispose of the application in I.A.No.580 of 2015 in O.S.No.363 of 2011 with in the stipulated time. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner already filed a suit in O.S.No.120 of 1986 before the I Additional District Court, Madurai for specific performance, based on an agreement of sale dated 23.08.1983 and the said suit was decreed on 03.04.1989. The appeal filed by the defendant in the suit in A.S.No.1086 of 1989 was dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District and Another Vs. Vill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayers in W.A.No.15 of 2016: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.10.2015 made in W.P.No.33942 of 2015. W.P.No.36019 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the protection under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and not to disturb the members of the petitioner Association from carrying on day to day business in M.G.Road, Badhusha Street and Nehru Street of Villupuram Town until the decision taken by Town Vending Committee constituted under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation) Act, 2004 and as per the provisions of the above said Act.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The issue arises for consideration in these cases is one and the same. Therefore, both the cases are disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.No.36019 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!M. Periyasamy Vs. M/S. Colour Stars Dyes Trading
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.09.2012 made in I.A.No.280 of 2012 in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Erode.) 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.09.2012 made in I.A.No.280 of 2012 in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Erode. 2. The respondent as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.218 of 2004 for recovery of money due on business transaction. The revision petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement and contested the same. When the plaintiff's side evidence was over and the matter was posted for defendant's side evidence, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.280 of 2012 under Order 18 Rule 3A and Section 151 of C.P.C. for examine the son of the defendant as a first witness before the father/defendant will be examined as a witness on the side of the defendant, by s...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mohammed Hussain Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of declaration, declaring the proceedings of the respondents 1 to 3 dated Nil as displayed in the notice board in the petitioner's property comprised in Killai South Village, Chidambaram Taluk, R.S.No.243/1, to an extent of 1 acre 42 cents and R.S.No.243/5, to an extent of 0.09 cents in all totaling acre 1.65 cents as null and void.) 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a declaration, declaring that the proceedings of the respondents 1 to 3 dated Nil as displayed in the notice board in his property comprised in Killai South Village, Chidambaram Taluk, R.S.No.243/1, to an extent of 1 acre 42 cents and R.S.No.243/5, to an extent of 0.09 cents in all totaling acre 1.65 cents are null and void. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a tenant in respect of the property comprised in Killai South Village, Chidambaram Taluk, in R.S.No.243/1 measuring to a...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. OKAY Transport Corporation (Regd), Rep. By its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in orders bearing No.D3/68/05, both dated 20.01.2005, passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.) Common Order: 1. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M r.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, in both these writ petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the Transport Contractors, who had been engaged by Consignors at Kerala for transport of raw rubber procured with the permission of Rubber Board of Consignees to Calcutta and Bihar. 3. The goods had crossed K.G.Chavadi Check-post and entered the State of Tamil Nadu and transit passes have been generated. It cannot be disputed that the transit passes will contain the vehicle number, which is transporting the goods, the check post through which the vehicle will exit the State of Tamil Nadu and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »