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.
Sabari Exim Private Limited, Chennai Vs. SIMS Metal Management Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30.04.2015 made in Company Petition No.350 of 2014.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.04.2015, admitting the Company Petition and appointing the Provisional Liquidator to the appellant company. 2. The facts leading to the filing of Company Petition for winding up of the appellant company are as follows : (i) The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent Foreign company on 03.05.2012 for purchase of steel scrap from the respondent. As per Clause 5 of the contract, the appellant was to establish 100% irrevocable Letter of credit for the contract value latest by 14.05.2012. The period was also extended to 18.05.2012. But the appellant failed to open the Letter of credit, as required under the contract, which lead the respondent company to go for Arbitration,...
K. Saravanan and Others Vs. The Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation rep. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: 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 relating to the impugned demand notice in Na.Ka.No.A1/3554/2015, dated 25.01.2016 of the respondent and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner herein challenges the demand notice, dated 25.01.2016 issued by the respondent/Corporation, on the ground that the latter cannot demand arrears of rent for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2016 with retrospective effect, by increasing the rent for the previous year. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the tenant of shop No.26 allotted in the Central Bus Stand Extension Area Complex of the respondent Municipality, is regularly paying the rent without arrears and while so, the respondent is demanding more rent for previous years with retrospective effect along with penal charges, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 3. Mr.Aairam K.Sel...
K. Thirupathi Vs. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Rama ...
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 culminated in the impugned transfer order in ref.Na.Ka.No.Va.4/20340/2016 dated 01.08.2016 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the transfer order issued by the P.A to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, in ref.Na.Ka.No.Va.4/20340/2016, dated 01.08.2016, has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the same, on the ground that the P.A to the District Collector has no authority to pass the said impugned transfer order. 2. When the matter was taken up, Mr.R.Anandaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, on instructions, fairly submitted that there is no delegation of power given in favour of P.A to District Collector, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside with liberty to the respondents to do the needful. 3. Recording the abovesaid submiss...
R. Panneer Selvam, Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary ...
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 1st respondent to assign the lands allotted to the members of Madurai Reporter's Guild (Press Club) in Old Survey No.134/4 and New Survey No. 134/2A1, Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District to an extent of 0.76.5 Hectares in the light of order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in murhiz (epiy) vz;.369 tUtha;j; (ep.K1(2) Jiw dated 24.06.2008 and in the light of proposal forwarded by the 2nd respondent in his Lr.No.R.C.No. F2/27097/05 dt.14.05.2010 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 04.07.2015 and 11.07.2016 within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble 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, even though the First Respondent had allotted the lands comprised in...
P. Ramesh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represnted By its Principal Sec ...
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 No.3 and 4 to consider the petitioner for promotion to the vacant post of B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) at Panchayat Union Middle School at Maniakkaranpatti, Pudur Union, Thoothukudi District within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous, since the petitioner has already been considered for promotion. 2. Recording the above said submission, this writ petition is closed. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed....
Jaishankar Vs. Selvaraj, Estate Officer and Chief Engineer, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.02.2014 passed in C.M.A.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioner was an employee in Integral Coach Factory (ICF). While the petitioner was in service, he was allotted a Type-II Quarters in South Colony for him to reside. On 22.08.2012, he was dismissed from service and was asked to vacate the Quarters within one month from the date of dismissal. By letter dated 25.08.2012, he was asked to handover vacant possession of the Quarters on or before 22.09.2012 without fail. As he failed to vacate the Quarters, the allotment of the said Quarters was cancelled by order dated 22.09.2012 and his occupation was treated as un-authorised. As per the said co...
Dr. P. Saravanan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1158 of 2016 in P.R.C.No.2 of 2016 on 21.04.2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner without petitioner's surrender or appearance before the Court.) 1. This revision is at the instance of A5 in P.R.C.No.2 of 2016, as against dismissal of his petition to recall the N.B.W. filed in Cr.M.P.No.1158 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. 2. Based on the complaint of the petitioner, a Madurai Doctor, the City Crime Branch Unit of Madurai City Police registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2015 under Sections 328, 201, 409, 420, 468, 120-B, 109 I.P.C., and under Sections 33(eea) and 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 3. The Investigation Officer went on collection of mat...
P. Duraisamy and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Tr ...
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 08.08.2016.) 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 submit...
Sudha Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Others
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 respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 7.6.2016 and to take necessary action within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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. It is the case of the Petitioner that her representation, dated 7.6.2016 addressed to the Respondents requesting them to issue separate patta by taking sub-division of his property mentioned in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is pending till date, without any progress or disposal. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5.Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 7.6.2016 is pending on the file of the Second Respondent, without any progress or disposal, this...
P. Ranganathan Vs. The State, Represented by The District Collector, T ...
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 respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 5.8.2016 for issuance of patta.) 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. The relief sought for by the Petitioner is only to consider his representation dated 5.8. 2016 praying for issuance of patta for the land as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The said application is pending as on date, without any progress or disposal. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's application/representation, dated 5.8.2016 is pending before the Respondents No.1 to 3 without any progress or disposal, at this stage, this Court without expressing any opinion...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »