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.
P. Rengasamy Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second and third respondents not to conduct survey in Dindigul District, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Kothaiyirumpu Village in S.F.Nos.575, 576, 577 and 768.) 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 Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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....
K. Pandiyan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(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 the retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 09.08.2016.) 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 submitted that the respondent 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 th...
A. Anthoni Dass Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operativ ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.51 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 02.02.2016 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner herein challenges in G.O.(D).No.51 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 02.02.2016, whereby, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of salary for one year with cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was serving as Sub Registrar /Squad in R.1564, Thiruvarmbur Union, Trichy District, he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 to conduct enquiry over the financial irregularities committed in R.1564, Sri Renganatha Swamy Devasthanam Workers Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs.79 Lakhs. Accordingly, the enquiry was commenced on 10.08.2009. Since th...
P. Sudhakar and Others Vs. T.K. Govinda Raj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.295 of 2014 in O.S.No.109 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.) 1. The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.295 of 2014 in O.S.No.109 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District. 2. The defendants 1 to 3 are the revision petitioners, the 1st respondent was the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 are the respondents. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2012 for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. 4. Since the defendants had remained absent before the trial Court, the trial Court set them exparte and passed an exparte decree on 21.01.2013. Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an application in I.A.No.295 of ...
K.S. Vajid Basha and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Director General of Police, Kamarajar Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004., namely the 3rd respondent herein from initiating any police action by labeling the petitioner as unqualified as he is a Registered Indian Medical Practitioner and thus ensure the safety of his profession in the field of Indian System of Medicine in Siddha, Ayurvedha now run at Pariyur Road, Pirivu Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, Tamil Nadu - 638 476 and Ayurveda run in the name and style of Thirupathi Puthur Kattu, Nudavaidya Salai, No.1, Housing Board Complex, Ottagapalayam, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026 respectively.) Common Order 1. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.28794 of 2016 would state that he has been issued with Medical Registration Certificate bearing Certificate No.BA 22678 by the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine and he...
State rep. By, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai Vs. Radhak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kacnheepuram in S.C.No.363 of 2005 dated 03.10.2013 and convict and sentence the accused.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6 herein who are A.1 to A.6 in S.C.No.363/2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu. The trial Court framed as many as nine charges against the accused as detailed below:- ad>Charge No.AccusedSection of law1A.1 to A.6120(B) I.P.C.,2A.1364 I.P.C.,3A.1 to A.4302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,4A.5 and A.6201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,5A.5 and A.6203 r/w 302 I.P.C.,6A.1 to A.4109 r/w 201 I.P.C.,7A.1 to A.4109 r/w 203 I.P.C.,8A.2 to A.4109 r/w 120(B) and 364 I.P.C.,9A.4109 r/w 302 I.P.C., By judgment dated 03.10.2013, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges. Aggrieved over the same, the State is be...
L.K.S. Mohammed Ali Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trich ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to issue free house site patta to the Petitioner in respect of property comprised in New S.No.561/10(Old S.No.304/1) measuring an extent of 1292 sq.ft, Puthanatham Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District, by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 9.8.2016.) 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, he purchased a land in New S.No.561/10(Old S.No.304/1) measuring an extent of 1292 sq.ft, Puthanatham Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District from one K.Abu Buckker and Umar Kathaf on 29.5.2013 and they were in possession of the said land for many decades. After his purchase, his property was assessed with house-tax and is having electricity connection in the above said p...
Kandasamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to measure the petitioner's property in S.No. 193/7B to an extent of 1 Hectare 20 acre, S.No. 193/5A1 to an extent of 0.91.50 Hectare, 193/11B to an extent of 0.25.00 Hectare, 193/9C to an extent of 0.20.50 Hectare, 193/6A to an extent of 0.20.00 Hectare, 193/10C to an extent of 0.80.0 Hectare measuring and to demark the boundaries in Chittur Village, Thiurmangalam Taluk within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in S.No. 193/7B to an extent of 1.20 Hectare, S.No. 193/5A1 to an extent of 0.91.50 Hectare, 193/11B to an extent of 0.25.00 Hectare, 193/9C to an extent of 0.20.50 Hectare, 193/6A to an extent of 0.20.00 Hectare, 193/10C to an extent of 0.08.0 Hectar...
Bala @ Balakrishnan Vs. The Administrative Executive Magistrate -cum-D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the respondent herein in M.C.No.107/Ni Se Na/Thi.Ma/16 dated 18.07.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 1. Where the rights of a person, get prejudicially affected, by an order made by an authority, in a proceeding where it involves civil consequences, whether such person is entitled to the predecisional notice / hearing, irrespective of whether the proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in nature, is the issue raised in this case. 2. The petitioner has been ordered to undergo imprisonment till the expiry of the bond executed by him, i.e. till 17.03.2017 by the order of the Executive Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner of Police, Trichy dated 18.07.2016. This order is under challenge in this petition. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner is the resident of Wooraiyur, Trichy; a case was registered against him in Crime ...
R. Palanichamy The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(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 with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 29.07.2016.) 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 submit...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »