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. Poomani Vs. The State of Tamilnadu Repd. By Its Secretary Secretari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No. 2135/Aa4/14 dated 05.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as B.T Assistant (History) in the 4th respondent school from 13.12.2011 within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. These petitioners have come to this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential order passed by the respective District Educational Officers/Assistant Elementary Educational Officers, refusing the requests of the petitioners to approve their appointments as B.T Assistants/Secondary Grade Teachers in the minority school on the ground that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15...
Pallikonda Srividya and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C. No.209 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Alandur and to quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C. No.209 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Alandur and to quash the same. 2 Heard Mr. V. Ayyaudrai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and Dr. A. Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 4 It is seen that Suram Jayachandra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as Jayachandran ) lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 28.08.2012 and since police did not take any action, he filed Crl.O.P. No.28480 of 2012 for a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR, ...
J. Venugopal and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records, relating to the impugned rejection order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(3D) No.100 dated 08/06/2016 and quash the same and further forbear the respondents 2 to 4 from taking any enforcement action against the petitioners' buildings at Flat No.1, Block No.334; Flat No.12, Block No.332; and Flat No.11, Block No.332 respectively in Galaxy Apartments, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 until the petitioners are enabled to apply for regularisation under Section 113-C of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas and Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned standing counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and 4 respectively. With the consent of both the parties, all the writ petitions are taken up for final...
Rukmani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District and A ...
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 release the Petitioner's Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-04 E 2502 which was seized by the second respondent on 27.6.2016 and now under the custody of the first respondent and to hand over the same to the Petitioner.) 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, he is the owner of the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-04-E2502 and the same is used for agricultural operations. At times, the Petitioner used his vehicle for carrying waste building materials, since she has no other source of income to maintain herself and her family and the income derived by plying the above said vehicle alone is the only source of income to maintain her family. 5. The plea of the Petitioner is that while-...
Chinnathambi and Another Vs. The State, represented by The Deputy Supe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 08.10. 2015 in S. C. No147 of 2011.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/A-1 and A-2 against the judgment dated 08.10.2015 in S.C.No.147 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, convicting the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (old Act of 1989) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, each. They were acquitted of the charges framed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the said Act and Section 506 (Part-2) IPC. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that P.W.1 Poongavanam who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, is a resident of Thokkavadi Village, Thukkapettai Post, Chengam Ta...
K. Neelavathi Vs. The Manager, UCO Bank, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant educational Loan to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,62,200/- (Rs.65,550/- x 4 years) (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand and Two Hundred only) pursuant to the application dated 03.02.2016 and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.) 1. Petitioner's father has been heard by this Court. Further, this Court has also heard the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank. 2. The petitioner has projected the present writ petition before this Court praying for passing of an order in directing the respondent/Bank to sanction/grant education loan to her for a sum of Rs.2,62,200/-, pursuant to her application dated 03.02.2016. In the affidavit of the petition, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is studying in I year B.E Course (Computer Science and Engineering Branch) in 'K.Ramakrishnan College o...
N. Lingadurai Vs. Shanmuga Sundaram Sub-Registrar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer:-Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order dated 17.11.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.18492 of 2014 in accordance with law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Contemnor that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.18492 of 2014, dated 17.11.2014 has been complied with. 3. In view of the above submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Contemnor, this Court is of the view that nothing survives for adjudication in the present Contempt Petition and the same is liable to be closed. 4. As such recording the statement of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Contemnor, this Contempt Petition is closed....
V. Muniasamy Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar 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 1st Respondent for instructing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2016 for framing the street as per sale deed Reg.No.657 dated 15.07.1987, hous Survey No.39/14 (Old Survey No.4/8A) and Patta No.294.) 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 purchased the house bearing Survey No.39/14 (Old Survey No.4/8A), Door No.7, Ward No.5, Muthalamman Kovil South Street, 1st Lane, Achampatti, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, in the year 1987, by means of Sale Deed, dated 15.07.1987. As a matter of fact, in the said Sale Deed, the southern boundary is mentioned as Thoppur Vandi Pathai' (Thoppur Bullock Cart Track), which passes in the west to east direction was u...
Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Common Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.55 of 2012 dated 11.12.2014.) S. Nagamuthu. J The appellant in Crl.A.No.32 of 2015 is A.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.49 of 2015 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.89 of 2015 is A.3; the appellant in Crl.A.No.167 of 2015 is A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.94 of 2015 is A.5 in S.C.No.55 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:- ad>AccusedSection of lawA.1120(B), 449 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 and 395 I.P.C.,A.2120(B), 449, 302 and 395 I.P.C.,A.3120(B), 449, 302 and 395 I.P.C.,A.4120(B), 449, 302 r/w 34 and 395 I.P.C.,A.5120(B), 449 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 and 395 I.P.C., All the accused denied the above charges framed against them. By judgment dated 11.12.2014, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the five accused as de...
SRM University, Rep. by its Registrar and Another Vs. Dr. Janet Jeyapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 08.04.2013 made in W. P. No. 12676 of 2012.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. The instant writ appeal arises from the order, dated 08.04.2013 made in W.P.No.12676 of 2012. 2. The facts in nutshell, leading to the filing of the intra court appeal are that the respondent / writ petitioner holding M.Sc., and Ph.D., in Applied Biology was appointed as Lecturer on 21.06.2008 in the Department of Biotechnology in the Faculty of Sciences and Humanities in the appellant University. The appellant University is a Deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short 'UGC Act')w.e.f 01.04.2010. 3. The respondent was issued with a memo, dated 14.02.2012 to show cause why disciplinary action, as per Service Rules, should not be taken for not taking classes for 3rd year B.Sc., and 1st year M.Sc., She submitted her replies on 15.02.2012 and 20.02.2012 denying the charges. Again another mem...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »