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.
M. Somappa Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter Nandini, aged about 17 years before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an unfortunate case. The petitioner, a plumber by profession and a poor man, is the father of one Nandini, whose date of birth is 08.06.1998. The petitioner's wife is one Mrs. Sankaramma. They have got four children including Miss. Nandini. The petitioner's brother is one Mr. Venkatesh. Mr.Venkatesh has got a son by name Prakash. Thus, Mr.Prakash is a cousin, falling within the supinda relationship of Nandini. 2. The allegation is that on 14.11.2015 around 6 am, Miss Nandini (hereinafter referred to as detenue) was kidnapped by Prakash and she was missing from that day onwards. The petitioner made a complaint to Hudco Police Station in Krishnagiri District on 18.11.2015, upon which a case in C...
S. Ravindranath Varman and Others Vs. P. Shanmuganathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 06.04.2011 in W.P.No.11618 of 2009 on the file of this Court.) 1. The perennial inter se dispute between what may be labelled as the promotees and the direct recruits in the commercial tax department does not seem to see a light at the end of the tunnel till now. This dispute has gone on for years together with the battle being taken right till highest Court. We may notice that a part of the responsibility for this is on the State Government on account of the fact that there has been some flip-flop on the part of the State Government on its stand possibly on account of the importance of the offices held by these officers and with an endeavour to find some 'equitable solution'. The dispute, however, has not been resolved resulting in the appeals we are hearing along with certain writ petitions. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties over a number of days. Suffice to say that one set of par...
Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Additional Director General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against the order dated 17.11.2014 made in W.P.18833 of 2013.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.18833 of 2013 dated 17.11.2014, by which, the writ court has declined to issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to release gold weighing 5541.92 Grams seized vide Mahazar dated 23.07.2013. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that the officers of the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai, visited the premises of the appellant's office on 27.03.2013, in connection with certain enquiry made relating to smuggling of Singapore gold jewellery. According to them, based on intelligence, they seized 28.499 Kgs of smuggled 22 ct gold jewellery from the possession of one Mr.R.Mahaveer. He had given voluntary statements dated 19.03.2013 and 25.03.2013 respectively, confessing that he had smuggled Singapore gold jewellery. 3. Case of the appel...
S. Joyce Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement Sections 3 and 4 of th Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the consequent rules framed by the State of Tamil Nadu and to place the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2015, before the Town Vending Committee constituted as per the above Act and conduct a survey of street vendors within a stipulated time as per the provision of the aforementioned Act and not to disturb the petitioner, from carrying on day to day business until the disposal of the petitioner representation dated 16.02.2015 and 22.06.2016 given to the respondents.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.A.Nagarajan, who accepts notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 2. The issue rai...
Lizy Vs. The Drugs Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in C.M.P.No.2601 of 2014 in C.C.No.120 of 2014, dated 29.10.2015.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in C.M.P.No.2601 of 2014 in C.C.No.120 of 2014, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the accused on 29.10.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. In this case, it is admitted by both parties that C.C.No.120 of 2014 is pending for trial and in the said case, the petitioner is the accused for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for violation under Section 18(c) and 18(A) of the said Act and the violations are that the petitioner/accused has stocked the drugs for sale withou...
A. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) L ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(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 all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Salary arrears in terms of settlement from 01.09.2013 to 30.04.2014, Provident Fund, Social Security Scheme amount, Refund of Institute of Road Transport contribution amount, earned Leave Salary, in terms of the Settlement 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 13.04.2015 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from date of his retirement to till the date of payment.) 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 submi...
K. Meena Vs. Kalaimani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.12.2004 made in C.M.A.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Karur, confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 16.04.2004, made in I.A.No.67/2004 in O.S.No.448 of 1997, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur and allow this civil revision petition.) 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 23.12.2004 made in C.M.A.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur, confirming the order, dated 16.04.2004, made in I.A.No.67/2004 in O.S.No.448 of 1997, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.448 of 1997 on the file of District Court, Karur, for specific performance. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to the petitioner/defendant, who entered into an agreement for sale on 12.02.1996 with the plaintiff/respondent, for a sale consideration o...
M/s. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in its impugned communication bearing Ref.No.DII/ IRU/Indev Logistice/26/2015 dated 27.07.2015, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent not to deny any facility to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of W.P.No.18399 of 2014 wherein the 1st respondent's demand of Rs.4,68,25,220/- and its actions are under challenge.) 1. Heard Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Sudharshana Sundar, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent/SIPCOT. Though notice has been served on the second respondent/AXIS Bank and their name is printed in the cause list, none appears for the second respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, the writ petition itself is ...
The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 07.01.2016 made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.34247 of 2015. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with the reference No.L-42011/07/2015-IR(DU) dated 04.09.2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Both the writ appeal and the writ petition have been preferred by the Executive Director of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirappalli, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in vacating the order of stay, against the order passed by the Central Government, the first respondent herein in referring the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, the second respondent herein for adjudication, in regard to the dispute raised by the members (approx. numbering 1174) of the BHEL Valaga Oppanda Thozhilalar Nala ...
M. Raj and Another Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in No.A.The, Mu.No.4 of 2015, dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Third Respondent and impugned order in No.5002/B1/2015, dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Second Respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to Register and release the sale deed kept as pending Document No.29 of 2015 executed by the Petitioners in respect of the property situated in S.No.15/1B, Vagaikulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and 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 petitioners, the refusal to register and release the Sale Deed kept as pending Document No.29 of 2015, executed by them in respect of the property bearing S.No. S.No.15/1B, Vagaikul...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »