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.
Simran Wind Project Private Limited and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Electric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the impugned Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (renewable energy Purchase Obligation) Regulations, 2010, notification no.TNERC/RPO/ 19/3, dated 21.01.2013 and all consequential orders, including the consequential order no.TNERC/M.04-2/E/RPO, dated 15.7.2013 as being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the powers of the TNERC and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicable CERC regulations.) 1. The writ petitions have been filed to declare that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (renewable energy Purchase Obligation) Regulations 2010, notification no.TNERC/RPO/19/3, dated 21.01.2013 and the consequential order no.TNERC/M.04-2/E/RPO, dated 15.7.2013 as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Electricity Act 2013 and the regulations framed there under. 2. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they ar...
Rekha Sweety and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 05.06.2015 made in S.C.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. ) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A.1 to A.4 in S.C.No.311 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The accused stood charged for offences under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 I.P.C. All the accused denied the above charges framed against them. By judgment dated 05.06.2015, the trial Court convicted A.1 to A.4 for offences under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for offence under Section 120(B) I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, each for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. The trial Court has ordered the above sentences to ru...
V. Vignesh Raguram Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to introduce a monthly billing facility to the Domestic, Non-Domestric Electricity consumers based on petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2015 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This writ petition has been instituted by a consumer of electric energy seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to introduce a monthly billing facility to the domestic and non-domestic electric consumers, taking into consideration the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 09.12.2015. 2. The writ petition, in our opinion,, is a misconceived one. The State Government in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), has been coming up with schemes duly fixing the slab rates of consumption charges for the electricity energy at reasonable tariff t...
Nambi Thevar Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondent 4 to appoint a fit person or Thakkar to conduct the temple festival which is going to be held on 18.07.2016 to 20.07.2016 under the direct supervision of the Respondents 2 and 3.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition, which runs as under: With the liberty to file a petition before the 4th respondent to decide the matter immediately, I withdraw the writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Board, Thoothukudi District, for redressal of his grievances in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. No costs....
M. Rajiv Pandian Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Rep. By i ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.(MD) No.4301 of 2014, dated 25.06.2014.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner whose writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment rendered on 25th June, 2014. 2. Various public sector oil companies have notified for selection of dealership called as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV). The notification was published on 29th May, 2013, in Daily Thanthi publication of Tamil language and also other newspapers in English language. Of them, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation has proposed to establish one such dealership at Ammaiyanayakkanur of Nilakottai Taluk of Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. As is also required of such companies to observe principles of reservation while selecting the dealers, representing all the relevant social segments, this particula...
P. Thangavelu Vs. The Union of India, Represented by the Post Master G ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent vide Memo No.A/196, dated at Karur, dated 23.06.2016 and quash the same as illegal and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. None appears for the petitioner and there is no representation when the name of the petitioner is called. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 23.06.2016, the Department of Posts India acting through its Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division, Karur, ordered for re-location of L.N.Samudram Branch Post Office of Karur Division and such relocation is contrary to the public interest. 3. Today, we got the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division, Karur, enclosing two judgments one rendered by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.2131 of 2010 instituted by th...
P. Samiappa Gounder, Proprietor, P.S.G. Transpots, Tirupur District Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayers in WP.No.24118/2016 :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent and its officials not to interfere in any manner with the plying of the buses by the petitioner on the respective routes. WP.No.24119/2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to strictly follow the SEC 103 of TNMV Act 1988 R/w Rule 248, 288 and 289 of TN MV Rules, 1989 before the issue of permit to the 4th respondent.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.Kalyana Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.S.Sai Raman, learned counsel accepting notice for the 1st respondent in WP.No.24118/2016 and 4th respondent in WP.No.24119/2016; and Mr.M.L.Mahendran, learned Government Advocate accepting notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 in WP.No.24118/2016 and respondents 1 to 3 in WP.No.24119...
M/s. Jharsanya Logistics Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The District Manager, TN State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(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 accept the tender submitted by the petitioner dated 21.06.2016 pursuant to the respondent's newspaper notification dated 28.05.2016 in the Tamil Daily Dina Murasu and to consider the grant of contract for transportation of Indian Made Foreign Spirit (IMFS) to the various retail units situated within Kanyakumari District from its Depot at Konam, Nagercoil for the notified period of one year from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2017 and pass orders) 1. The Petitioner / Company has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent / District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Kanyakumari, to accept the tender submitted by it, dated 21.06.2016, pursuant to the Respondent's Newspaper Notification, dated 28.05.2016, in a Tamil Daily Dina Murasu and to consider t...
M. Ravi Vs. The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders based on the Petitioner's representation dated 2.5.2016.) 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 father during his life-time, has gifted a land to the Temple which is situated in S.No.93/7, Rajendrapuram Village, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, measuring an extent of 33.75 cents. His father regularly conducted the pooja and other functions. He was getting his first respect and first diadem in the said Ayyanar Temple in Rajendrapuram Village, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the Temple, one Chinniah, was performing as Poosari and thereafter, his son namely Manickam and now his son Palanivel is acting as Po...
S.A. Pitchaikani Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue Legal Heirship Certificate to the Petitioner and his wife and one Subbulakshmi, as Legal Heirs of their deceased daughter one Thoranammal by considering the Petitioner's representation to the respondents within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, he and his wife and his deceased son-in-law are the legal heirs of his deceased daughter and that he had applied for legal heirship certificate before the Third Respondent / Tahsildar / Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. In fact, the Fourth Respondent / Village Administrative Officer, Sivakasi, had submitted a favorable reply, recommending his case before the Third respondent. However, the Third Respondent / Tahsildar, without considering the Fourth Respondent's report / Village Administrative Officer, Sivakasi, straightway pass...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »