Chennai Court August 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.
K. Dhanasekaran Vs. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for records of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 30.05.2015, and quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the service as Office Assistant till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years.) 1. The petitioner/Mr.K.Dhanasekaran, who was originally appointed as Packer in the third respondent Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, has been discharging his duty without any complaint whatsoever to the fullest satisfaction of the respondents and also Superior Officers. However, when his date of superannuation is 60 years, the third respondent relieved the petitioner from the service on the ground that he has completed 58 years on 30.05.2015, which is against by-laws of the Co-operative Societies. Although the petitioner raised his objection and also gave a r...
G. Rajkumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the Second Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.27420/G2/2015 and Na.Ka.No.27420/G2/2015-2, dated 30.06.2016 and quash the same as illegal respectively.) Common Order W.P.(MD)No.12320 of 2016:- 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Second Respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.27420/G2/2015, dated 30.06.2016 and to quash the same, as an illegal one. 2. W.P.(MD)No.12321 of 2016:- The Petitioner has focused the instant writ petition praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order made by the Second Respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.27420/G2/2015-2, dated 30.06.2016 and to quash the same, as an illegal one. Petitioner's Contentions:- 3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner urges b...
M. Anumohan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs to the petitioner, within a stipulated period.) Introductory: 1. This case is a classic example as to how certain bad elements with criminal background working in the Tamil Nadu Police Force are foisting cases against innocent people by invoking the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for blackmailing and to extract money and the plight of the common man who is made to suffer on account of such illegal acts of police officers, who are expected to uphold the majesty of law. 2. The respondents 4 and 5 registered a false case against the petitioner and two others under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act']. The petitioner was in jail for a period of 229 days, besides one day police custody. The inv...
G. Mariappan Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Lt ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the Petitioners retirement benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave wages Arrears Amount and Dearness Allowance payable to him along with monthly pension with reasonable rate of interest within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents 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 respondents 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 submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06....
Anandanayaki Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2016 to implement the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur in proceedings No.Pa.Mu.2662/A3/(MC)4/2015 dated 28.12.2015.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2016 to implement the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur in proceedings No.Pa.Mu.2662/A3/(MC)4/2015 dated 28.12.2015. 2. Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she owns a property in S.No.171/14 to an extent of 11 cents situated in Punnainallur Mariammankovil Village, Thanjavur Di...
K. Srinivasan Vs. G. Govinda Pillai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.329 of 2012 in O.S.No.108 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.329 of 2012 in O.S.No.108 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.108 of 1998 for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 15.09.2004. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.906 of 2009 in O.S.No.108 of 1998 to condone the delay of 1755 days in fililng the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said application was not pressed by the 2nd defendant. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not pressed by the trial Court on 15...
Vadamalai Vs. State Represented by: Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., calling for the records relating to the judgment passed in C.A.No.18 of 2007 dated 27.7.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur vide his judgment dated 7.2.2007 in C.C.No.1046 of 2004 and to set aside the same.) 1. The accused in C.C.No.1046 of 2004, who is also the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2007, has directed this revision. 2. On 20.1.2003, at about 2.15 a.m., on the Karur-Salem National Highway, near Kumarasamy Engineering College, the revision petitioner came driven the Government Bus TN-57-N-0824 from Madurai towards Salem. While from the opposite side from Salem towards Madurai on the very same road one Subramaniya Raja came driven the Hero Honda Car TN-59-R-8082. 3. In the front seat of the car, PW-1 was seated, in its back seat, PW-1's wife PW-2, their son Alagusundaram and their daughter PW-3 were seated. At about that time, a...
Kennedy and Another Vs. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2)Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 03.09.2010 in S.C.No.96 of 2009 on the file of the Special Court (Principal Sessions Court), Villupuram.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.09.2010 passed in S.C.No.96 of 2009 on the file of the Special Court (Principal Sessions Court), Villupuram, in and by which, the appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder: ad>Sl.No.Conviction under SectionSentence of imprisonment / Fine1Section 294(b) IPCFine Rs.1,000/- each, in default, each to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment2Section 506(i) IPCFine Rs.10,000/- each, in default, each to undergo three months simple imprisonment3Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actone year rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, each to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2 is that ...
A. Jesu Stalin Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Pattukottai, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st Respondent from registering any document submitted through the 2nd Respondent or his power of attorney in respect of the property in Survey No.11/6A, measuring about 01.06 Acre, situated at Sukkiranpatti Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made to that effect, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
N. Gowthaman @ Babu Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer in H.C.P. No.1441 of 2007: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of habeas corpus and quash the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No.197/98 dated 22.03.1999 and direct the second respondent to set the petitioner at liberty from illegal detention at Central Prison, Coimbatore.) Common Order B. Rajendran and P.N. Prakash, JJ. 1. This Special Bench has been constituted to untie the Gordian knot and answer the following questions which arose under the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 (for brevity the Borstal Schools Act ).PART - I (referred by a 3 Judge Bench comprising A. Selvam, B. Rajendran and P.N. Prakash JJ.) 1. Whether a Court is empowered to act under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act only upon arriving at a finding of conviction? 2 Whether the term imprisonment in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, would include imprisonment for life ? 3 Whether the decision rendered by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »