Chennai Court July 2016 Judgments
The Management, Shri Maharishi Vidya Mandir, rep.through its Correspon ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari against the respondent and his men from recovering EPF Contribution from the petitioner from thee period from 06/2014 to 3/2015 as per the order of the respondent passed in MD/MDU/42594 dated 04.07.2016 and quash the same) 1. Challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 04.07.2016 the petitioner is before this Court, instead of approaching the Provident Fund Tribunal. When there is a statutory appellate alternative forum available, time and again, this Court as well as Apex Court, has held that Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Provident Fund Tribunal, if he desires to do so. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Babu and Another Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police E3, Minjur Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:These Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 16.07.2015 made in S.C.No.165 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, by allowing these appeals.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.514 of 2015 is the first accused and the appellants in Crl.A.No.476 of 2015 are Accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.165 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 16.07.2015, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced them as follows:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1307 r/w 34 IPCRigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months 302 r/w 34 IPCTo undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months....
Tag this Judgment!M. Balasubramanian and Another Vs. N. Ravindran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the order and decreetal order dated 04.03.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.503 of 2007 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, varying the order fixing fair rent dated 26.06.2007 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1132 of 2006 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.503 of 2007 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, modifying the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1132 of 2006 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the landlords have filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.2337 of 2010 for enhancement of the fair rent and the tenant has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3939 of 2011 for reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. The landlords filed...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. M/s. Adhavan Processor ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - 600 006 dated 08.02.2011 made in Final Order No.291/2011.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Though the first respondent M/s.Adhavan Processor (P) Ltd has been served and their name has been shown in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. 2. Facts deduced from the material records are that M/s.Adhavan Processor (P) Ltd, Erode, are processors of textile fabrics and were paying duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From 16.12.1998, compounded levy scheme was introduced to independent textile processors under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules were framed as per Notification No.36/98-Central Excise and 42/98-Central Excise, both dated 10.12.1998. From 01.03.2000, the first respondent/assessee was required to pay duty in terms of the annual prod...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Vs. tate Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veppur Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, in S.C.No.229 of 2008 dated 19.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.433 of 2015 is the Accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.208 of 2015 is the Accused No.2 in S.C.No.229 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 302, 392 and 201 r/w 392 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 19.03.2015, convicted both A1 and A2 under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imp...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The Petitioner has preferred the main writ petition before this Court in calling for the records of the 2nd respondent/Regional Joint Director of Employment and Training, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli, pertaining to his proceedings in e.f.vz;.2516/ ifg/2016 dated 15.07.2016 and to quash the same. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner/Valanar Academy of Vocational Training, Kuruvikulam Post, Tirunelveli District was started with an object to uplift the poor and backward youths in the vicinity of Kuruvikulam. As a matter of fact, the Institution got recognition and affiliation under No.DGET 6/22/25/97 TC in the year 1997 itself. The Institution, at present, has seven trades with respective sanctioned seats and the details of the same are as under: Sl.No.Name of TradeNumber of UnitsIntakeActual AdmissionGovt.Manag.1.Fitter2+24216262.Mechanic Ref and AC1+12610163.Mech...
Tag this Judgment!Retinamoni Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Others
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 respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 1.7.2016 and 15.7.2016 and issue license for running the Piggery Farm in the Petitioner's property in R.S.No.107/4, situated at Veeyanoor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) 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 had submitted a petition/application, dated 1.7.2016 addressed to the Respondents No.1 to 3 for seeking license to run the piggery farm. After receipt of the Petition/application, the Respondents had not given any reply and kept the same without any disposal or progress. Therefore, the Petitioner was forced to project another petition in the subject-matter in issue on 15.7.2016. Even though the second representa...
Tag this Judgment!Govindammal Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to grant the remaining fund to the Petitioner to finish the construction under the Green House Scheme based on the representation of the Petitioner, dated 11.2.2016.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Gunasekaran Vs. K. Balasubramani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 30.1.2012, passed by the Fast Track Court No.I cum Additional District Judge, Erode in O.S.No.291 of 2007.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the Judgment and Decree dated 30.1.2012, passed in O.S.No.291 of 2007, by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode. 2. The respondents 1 to 7 herein, as plaintiffs, have instituted O.S.No.291 of 2007 on the file of the trial court, praying to pass a money decree in their favour in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 6.9.1995, wherein the present appellant has been shown as first defendant. 3. The epitome of the plaint averments may be stated like thus: The suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant. The first defendant has entered into a sale agreement with one C.Govindasamy and his wife Pavayammal on 3.5.1995, wherein it is stated that the agreement holders have agreed to purchase the property for a ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkateswaran Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the Selection List of District Judge [Entry Level] 2013 and cancel his appointment as a District Judge [Entry Level] and to appoint the petitioner in the vacant place.) M. Sathyananarayanan, J 1. The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate and he is also one of the candidates who applied for the post of District Judge [Entry Level] to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services in terms of the Notification published in the News Daily on 02.05.2013. The petitioner was successful in his written examination and also participated in the Viva Voce ; but was not selected. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent who was selected, at the time of submission of the application for recruitment to the said post, had suppressed the fact of his involvement as 4th accused in Crime No.16 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »