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.
The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and Another Vs. Dr. Y. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the third respondent herein, pertaining to the impugned order dated 13.11.2014 made in Original Application No.310/01392/2014 and quash the same and consequently, permit the petitioners herein to continue the disciplinary proceedings, pending against the first respondent herein.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 13.11.2014, passed in Original Application No.310/01392/14, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. 2. The first respondent herein, as applicant, has filed Original Application No.310/01392/14, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, where...
R. Dhakshinamoorthy Vs. B. Jeyalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: in Crl.RC.No.185 of 2016: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 18.12.2015 in unnumbered C.M.P.No. of 2015 in S.T.C.No.208 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.I), Erode. Prayer in Crl.RC.No.186 of 2016: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 21.12.2015 in unnumbered C.M.P.No. of 2015 in S.T.C.No.208 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.I), Erode.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
S. Kulandaivel Vs. The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to investigate and file a final report in Cr.No.15 of 2015 for the offences u/s 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC pending on the file of respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to investigate and file a final report in Cr.No.15 of 2015 for the offences u/s 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC pending on the file of respondent police. 2. On 24.08.2016, this Court passed the following order: "Mr.M.Vijayanand, learned counsel appearing for Mr.M.Elango sought adjournment. 2. The respondent-Police is directed to produce Mr.S.Kulandaivel/petitioner herein and Ms.G.Ambika, Ms.Monisha and Mr.M.Elango, Advocates before this Court on 26.08.2016. 3. Since the respondent-police have registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2015 in connection with the alleged impersonation before the Mediation Centre, the Police are in need of the original Mediation Report dated 18.12.2014 for the purpose of i...
V. Rangaiah Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporati ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay advance of Rs.2,00,000/- from the accumulation of employee's contribution stood in his E.P.F account TN/32497/18033 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner, who is serving as a Driver in Pattukkottai Branch of the first respondent Corporation has given a petition, dated 13.06.2016, to the second respondent, seeking Rs.2,00,000/- as advance along with the certificate of the doctor. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to avail loan/advance from the accumulations of both employer's and employee's contributions, the loan availed from accumulation of the employer's contribution should be refunded by the employee with due interest fixed for the loan. But the advance availed by the employee from the employee's contributions need not be repaid by the employee. As per Clause 68-J of the scheme framed und...
Ulagalandar Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 27.07.2012, passed in E.P.No.3714 of 2011 in O.S.No.3280 of 1999 on the file of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Heard the submissions of Mr.Natana Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.T.Mohan for R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order passed by the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in E.P.No.3714 of 2011 in O.S.No.3280 of 1999 whereby the Court has dismissed the E.P. filed under Order XI Rule 32 for directing the respondent to remove the encroached portion in 'B' Schedule of the property. 3. The Original Suit was filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction and an ex-parte decree was passed on 14.06.2006 directing the respondent to remove the encroachment over and above the o...
S. Messiah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20.06.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.10772 of 2016 on the file of this Court.) 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in the writ petition instituted by the appellant. The writ petition, in turn, is preferred calling in question the correctness of the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.(1D).No.198, dated 11.05.2015. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. In that, having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from an individual, the Tribunal for isciplinary Proceedings to which conducting of enquiry has been entrusted found him guilty and as a result of the charge laid against the appellant/writ petitioner having been held proved, was inflicted with a punishment of removal from service by an order dated 31.01.1997. Aga...
Mageshkumar and Others Vs. V. Annadurai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records Order dated 14.02.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.220 of 2013 in C.C.No.196 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.X, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the same.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
S.S.M. Processing Mills Ltd., and Others Vs. M/s. V.N.Ayyadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C. No.520 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode, quash the same by allowing this quash petition.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C. No.520 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode and quash the same by allowing this quash petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and the respondent are referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned counsel for the complainant. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.11,60,228/- and the same was dishonoured when presented by the complainant. The complainant issued a statutory notice and since the accused did not make the payment, has lodged the present complaint in S.T.C.No.520 of 2014 before the Judicial M...
C.M. Mohamed Kutty and Others Vs. Sree Gokulam Chit Funds Co. Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the order passed in C.A.No.525 of 2007, dated 29.09.2008 by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.159 of 2006 dated 22.11.2007 by the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.) G. Chockalingam, J 1. When the matter came up before this Court on 24.08.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it was adjourned today i.e., 26.08.2016 under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution....
M/s. Kanagadhara Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. M/s. T.V.S. Financ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.53 of 2010 in O.S.No.68 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, dated 23.11.2011.) 1. Heard the submissions of Mr.Thiruvenkatasamy for M/s.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner. 2. The challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore District in I.A.No.53 of 2010 in O.S.No.68 of 2007. The petitioner has preferred the said Interlocutory Application praying that all the proceedings in the Suit shall be stayed since Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1995 (SICA) mandates that a Suit shall be stayed if a proceeding is pending before the BIFR. 3. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent has filed a Suit for recovery of money and other reliefs in O.S.No.68 of 2007 before Principal Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »