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.
Switzer Instrument and Controls Private Limited and Another Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation.) Common Order 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company with effect from 01.04.2013. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure '5' to C.P.No.499 of 2015 and Annexure '4' to C.P.No.500 of 2015. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.499 of 2015 is the transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.500 of 2015 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there is no secured creditor as far as transferor company as well as transferee company are concerned and the certificates of the Chartered Accountant confirming the same are appended as Annexure '7' to C.P.No.499 of 2015 and Annexure '6' to C.P.No.500 of 2015. ...
M. Thirunavukarasu Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
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...
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Others Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 18.03.2013 made in W.P.No.34451 of 2012.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants/State, who was assisted by Mr.Rajagopal, Junior Assistant, attached to Appellants-Department and Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel representing for Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent herein/writ petitioner. 2. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants-State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.34451 of 2012. 3. The writ petitioner/respondent herein preferred the writ petition seeking quashment of the notification No.VI(1)/576/98 dated 22.04.1998 published in No.15 Part-VI Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Notification No.VI(1)/1725/97 dated 31.10.1997 in Part VI Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and Notification issued by the third respondent under Section 11(1) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ce...
V. Ramasamy Vs. M. Ranganathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer:Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2,165 days delay in filing the cross appeal.) 1. This miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 2165 days in filing the cross objection in the above second appeal, which at the time of filing such cross objection was not admitted. 2. The petitioner contended that he has filed the above application by way of abundant caution, though filing cross objection would arise only after the admission of the second appeal.Thus it is contended that when the second appeal itself was not admitted at that time and only notice of motion was ordered by this court, cross objection filed even at that stage has to be taken as the one filed in time by taking note of the fact that the event of admission of the second appeal took place latter. 3. This application is opposed by the appellant.It is his contention that when admittedly notice of hearing of the appeal was served on the petitioner pursuant to an orde...
S. Maria Lourdhu Jeyanthi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its 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 third respondent herein to fill up the BT Assistant post in Panchayat Union Middle School, Pathinamperi, Manur Union by conducting necessary Promotion counseling as per the seniority list.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to fill up the BT Assistant post in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Pathinamperi, Manur Union by conducting necessary Promotion counseling as per the Seniority List. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is shown against Serial No.1 in the Panel for promotion to the post of BT Assistant (Mathematics), therefore, she is the eligible person to be promoted as BT Assistant (Mathematics) in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Pathinamperi, Manur Union. While so, the respondents, having fixed the promotional counseling o...
B. Jeyasingh Moses Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari ...
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 release the 407 Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-75-J-8764 which was seized by the third respondent without any valid authority on 18.07.2016 at 1.30 a.m from Verkilambi and stationed in the third respondent's Office within the period 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. According to the Petitioner, he is running Transport Business in the name and style of ''Jesus Lorry Service and Earth Movers'' in Poovankodu, Kanyakumari District. He is having many number of transport vehicles including the above mentioned Tempo Lorry which was purchased in his name in the year 2012. The said Tempo Lorry and other vehicles are used for transporting the construction materials through proper bill a...
M. Chinnathambi Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport ...
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 26.07.2016.) 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...
P. Krishnan and Others Vs. State by, the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.157/2016 in C.C. No.42/2011 dated 21.06.2016 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P. No.157/2016 in C.C. No.42/2011. 2. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C. No.42/2011 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam for offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W. 57, whom the accused also cross-examined. While so, the accused filed Crl.M.P. No.157 of 2016 in C.C. No.42 of 2011 under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.7,8,11,14,21,25 and 37 for the purpose of further cross-examination and for examining L.W. 11 and 43 as Court witness. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed Crl.M.P. No.157 of 2016 on 21.06.2016, challenging...
The Union of India, Rep. by Director General, New Delhi and Others Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 made in O.A.No.809 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.08.2013 in O.A.No.809 of 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) and quash the same. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The second respondent is the applicant before the Tribunal. The second respondent / applicant when working as officiating Postmaster at Dindigul Head Office, faced departmental proceedings. He was first issued with office memo and then charge memo, alleging that during the period from 18.01.2008 to 24.01.2008 sanctioned additional...
Chellaiah Vs. The Assistant Director, Land Records, Tanjore District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(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 furnish the documents in respect of the property which have been mentioned in Annexure with this Writ Petition based on the Petitioner's representation, dated 12.4.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his grand-father namely, Paraman got settlement from His Excellency Raja Saraboji, Tanjore and in fact, the settlement was registered in the Office of the Registration Department in the year 1828. In fact, those documents were registered on 5th, 13th and 25th November 1828. 5. The clear-cut case of the Petitioner is that now the property was encroached by some people without having proper records in their possession. Therefore, the Petitioner had decided to evict them in a lawf...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »