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. Subramani and Another Vs. K. Selvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decretal order of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli dated 06.10.2004 in I.A.No.227 of 2004 in O.S.No.96 of 2002. ) 1. Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside the fair and decretal order of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli dated 06.10.2004 in I.A.No.227 of 2004 in O.S.No.96 of 2002. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice was served on 27.02.2012, on the respondent, he has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through his counsel. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. The trial Court is directed to number the set aside applicatio...
P.R. Thirunavukarasu Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(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 the retirement benefits to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 05.08.2016.) 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 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has ...
Royal Club, represented by its Secretary R.Selvaraj, Virudhunagar Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned circular issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.ka.No.417/2016/B, dated 21.07.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter of Second Respondent is filed. 3. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. According to the Petitioner/Club, it is a registered Society bearing Sl.No.47/2002 and it is a basically a Recreation Club. As a matter of fact, the Club purchased liquor cases from TASMAC godown after remitting appropriate charges. There is no sale taking place as such in the club. In reality, the members join together and consume liquor and the expenditure involved is shared. Furthermore, the Club pays a privilege fee of Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, the Petitioner/Club is running a bar for the past ten years. 5. The stand of the Petitioner/Club is that FL2 License was issued ...
C.M. Veeraiah Vs. The Executive Officer, Puduvayal Town Panchayat, Kar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.86/2015/A2, dated 18.9.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to grant licence to the Petitioner in respect of first and second items of tender notifications in Na.Ka..No.86/2014/A2, dated 26.2.2015.) 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. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M/s. Ampa Housing Development Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Joint Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent proceedings appeal dismissal order dt 24.2.2016 in PGA. 45/2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund the deposit amount of Rs.1 87 331/- collected.) 1. Heard Mr.S.S.Cheran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has come before this court challenging the dismissal order of the 1st respondent dated 24.2.2016 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund the deposit amount of Rs.1,87,331/- collected. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved over the order passed by the 2nd respondent in the petition filed by the 3rd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent. 4.1 The 3rd respondent, filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act),...
Gnanasargunam and Another Vs. Dakshinamurthy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayers: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, dated 16.02.2015 made in A.S.No.37 of 2009 confirming the judgment and decree of Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 24.04.2009 made in O.S.No.302/2008. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, dated 16.02.2015 made in A.S.No.50 of 2009 confirming the judgment and decree of Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 24.04.2009 made in O.S.No.307/2008.) 1. Second Appeal No.1067 of 2015 is filed by the defendant in a suit for bare injunction filed by the respondent in the above appeal. Second Appeal No.1068 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction filed against the respondents herein in the above appeal. In other words, there are two suits filed for the relief of the bare injunction by the respective parties before the Court below ...
Govindaraj Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 10.04.2015 made in Sp.C.C.No.37 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Court (Fast Track) Coimbatore.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in SPl.C.C.No.37 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Court (Fast Track), Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) (2 counts). The second accused is one Mr.Saravanan, who stood charged for offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC r/w Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By judgment dated 10.04.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, however, convicted the first accused/appellant herein under Section 376 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for ea...
P. Kanagavel Vs. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Plannin ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to re-classify the land of the Petitioner measuring an extent of 3,153 sq.ft in T.S.No.55/1, Survey No.55/30 in Periathambi Nagar, Ward No.1, Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam for commercial use into one of residential use.) 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 she is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 3153 sq.ft in T.S.No.55/1, Survey No.55/30 in Periathambi Nagar, Ward No.1, Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam. having purchased the same for valuable consideration from one S.V.Rangasamy. He had purchased the aforesaid property by means of sale deed, dated 4.9.2008 under Document No.4050 of 2008 in the Office of the District Registrar, Kumbakonam. 5. The said property w...
A. Karuppiah Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(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 all the terminal benefits amount payable to the petitioner including Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Unavailed Leave Salary, Service-Surrender Leave Salary, 12(3) settlement arrears and Dearness Allowance arrears together with 18% interest from the date of my retirement to till the date of payment and also 18% interest for the belated payment of provident Fund, refund amount of Institute of Road Transport, Social Security Scheme amount and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner.) 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...
Harikrishnan Vs. G. Sumathy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the docket order dated 30.04.2014 in M.P. No.674 of 2013 in M.P. No.287 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the docket order dated 30.04.2014 passed in M.P. No.674 of 2013 in M.P. (sic) M.C. No.287 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai (for brevity the Trial Court ). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. It is the case of G. Sumathy that she got married to Harikrishnan on 15.06.1989 and through the wedlock, they have two children, viz., Stella and Samuel. It is alleged by Sumathy that Harikrishnan failed and neglected to maintain her and her children and hence, she filed M.C. No.287 of 2006 before the Trial Court, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Harikrishnan denied the very factum of m...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »