Chennai Court August 2016 Judgments
P. Shanmuganathan Vs. The Secretary to Tamil Nadu Government, Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11618 of 2009.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11618 of 2009 dated 06.04.2011. The issue relates to promotion. The writ petition in W.P.No.11618 of 2009 is one among the batch of writ petitions filed in W.P.Nos.11618 of 2009, 18847 to 18853 of 2009 and 21448 to 21455 of 2009. Since common facts were involved in those writ petitions, the learned single Judge of this Court has dealt with the facts involved in W.P.No.11618 of 2009. 2. The facts arising out of the writ petition in W.P.No.11618 of 2009 from which the present writ appeal has arisen, are as follows: (i) The prayer in W.P.No.11618 of 2009 was to quash the order of the second respondent in Proc.No.P1/58439/2007 dated 04.05.2009 communicating inter-se seniority list of Assistant Commercial Tax officers (hereinafter referred to as A....
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Sankara Narayanan Vs. The Inspector General of Police, Railways, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 17.2.2011 passed in W.P.No.17749 of 2010.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 17.2.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.17749 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant, as petitioner, has filed Writ Petition No.17749 of 2010 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed in Na.Ka.No.A1/14276/2010 Maa.Aa.No.286/2010 dated 30.6.2010 by the second respondent and quash the same. 3. In Writ Petition No.17749 of 2010, it is averred as follows: The petitioner has been appointed as Grade II Constable on 15.11.1980 and subsequently posted as Grade II Constable/Driver on 3.6.1986. During March 1992, the Motor Transport Test has been conducted. The petitioner has also taken part and secured highest marks and subsequently, ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s.Vincot Agencies Vs. Sri Ramajayam Spintext (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 433(1)(e), 434(1)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, prays (a) that the respondent company, namely M/s.Sri Ramajayam Spintext P Ltd., be ordered to be wound up under the orders and directions of this Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; (b) that this Court may be pleased to appoint the Official Liquidator of the respondent company to take charge of the business affairs and the assets of the said company (c) that the costs of the petition.) 1. This is a petition filed essentially under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of business transaction, the petitioner supplied raw ginned cotton to the respondent company. The respondent company, which is in the business of manufacturing yarn, accepted those supplies. The petitioner asserts that in respect of supplies made between 10.3.2014 and 10.5.2014, a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Minor M. Shiekmohammed and Others Vs. The District Registrar, Karur Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from registering the sale deeds executed relating to the properties in S.No.1757 measuring about 18 acres 25 cents, 1764 measuring about 2 acres 14 cents, S.No.1765 A measuring about 12 acres 88 cents, 1765 B measuring about 16 acres 42 cents, 1769 measuring about 2 acres 14 cents situated at Koodalur lower part village, Aravakuirchi Taluk, Karur District without conducting enquiry as contemplated under Section 34 of Registration Act 1908 based on the telegraphic representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2011.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement indicating that the petitioner is withdrawing the Writ Petition. 2. In view of the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Karuthan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District Collect ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 13.04.2016 on the file of the First Respondent, within a stipulated time.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to dispose of the Appeal, dated 13.04.2016 lying on the file of the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's Appeal, dated 13.04.2016, is pending on the file of the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, at this stage, this Court, in the interest of Justice and fair play, directs the First Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Kalil Rahman and Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and quash the same.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.4 of 2014 has been registered under Section 498(A) IPC, Section 4 of D.P.Act and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2002 by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, which was taken cognizance by the Court in C.C.No...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundaramoorthy and Others Vs. Minor Iswaryalakshmi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.253 of 2014): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, on the file of the learned Family Court of Madurai. (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, and set aside the same.) Common Order: 1. As these two revisions are directed as against the very same order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the factual matrix and legal issues are intermixed, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.253 of 2014 has been filed by a father as against his daughter in granting her monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- in M.C.No.42 of 2010, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai. 3. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2014 has been filed by the wife as against ...
Tag this Judgment!Apnaa Engg. Industries Private Limited, Chennai and Another Vs. ----
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the scheme of arrangement (demerger).) Common Order: 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement (demerger) (in short Scheme) between the Demerged company with the Resulting company with effect from 01.04.2016. The Scheme is appended as Annexure '5' to the petitions. 2. M/s.Apnaa Engg. Industries Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.155 of 2016 is the Demerged company and M/s.Guindy Engineering Solutions India Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.156 of 2016 is the Resulting Company. 3. A perusal of the records shows that the respective petitioner company have complied with the formalities as prescribed under the Companies Act and the Rules framed therein. 3.1. It is stated that there is no secured creditor as far as the Demerged Company as well as the Resulting Company are concerned. Certificates...
Tag this Judgment!M. Manimaran and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.140 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 12 and 14 to 28 in S.C.No.140 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The trial Court framed as many as 10 charges against the accused as detailed below: Serial Numberof chargeCharge(s) framedagainstCharge(s) framedunder Section1A1 to A28148 of IPC2A1 to A28120(B) of IPC3A6 to A28449 of IPC4A1 to A5449 r/w 149 of IPC5A6 to A28341 of IPC6A1 to A5341 r/w 149 of IPC7A6 to A28302 of I.P.C.8A1 to A5302 I.P.C. r/w 149 ofIPC9A6 to A28506(ii) of IPC10A1 to A5506(ii) r/w 149 of IPCThe accused No.13 Mr.Kannan @ Thiruttu Kannan died during the pendency of the trial and thus the charges framed against him stood abated. By judgment dated 21.12.2015, the trial Court convicted these appellants for various charges ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Selvapushpam Vs. and Another The Kovilpatti Municipality, rep.throu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein not to make any obstruction to the petitioner's right of ingress and egress to the public road from the premises in Door No.717, Main Road, Kovilpatti.) 1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti, requesting them not to put up the toilet near to his shop. Since follow up action was not taken by the respondent, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. 2. This Court passed an order of interim injunction on 01.07.2011. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 29.06.2011 on merits and as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The petitioner is directed to forward a c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »