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.
G. Giridharan Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2016 and post him in any administrative departments by taking into consideration of his physical disability.) 1. The petitioner herein seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the his representation, dated 26.07.2016, and post him in any administrative department by taking into consideration his physical disability. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the year 2010, the petitioner herein met with an accident, resulting in amputation of the left leg, thereby, virtually, he became a physically disabled person. In view of the disability, the petitioner earlier had filed W.P.(MD).No.11297 of 2010 before this Court for a direction to the authorities to provide an alternative appointment. By an order, dated 01.12.2011, the s...
KM.NKM.NKM.Nallakaruppan Chettiar and Another Vs. The Joint Commission ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.7.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioners, they are the hereditary trustees pertaining to Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti, Sivagangai District and they are jointly interested in the subject matter in issue. As a matter of fact, the said temple is a denomination public temple and it was notified by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. Although the temple is a denomination public temple, it is an excepted temple, in that, the management of the temple is vested with the Nagarathar Community belonging to a particular clan and family through which they derive their title for management and trusteeship of the temple at Pillayarpatti. 3. The stand of the petitioners is that as per the history of the temple, the Nagarathar (Nattukott...
The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 4.4.2016 passed in W.P.No.7958 of 2016 on the file of this court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This writ appeal is filed by the State against awarding of 2 additional/bonus marks to the respondent for each year of service rendered by him to get himself qualified for admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for the academic year 2016-2017. 3. The case of the writ petitioner/respondent is that he is a registered Medical Practitioner, appointed as Assistant Surgeon in Palani Urban Primary Health Centre, which is under the control of Pappampatty Block Medical Officer (Rural Primary Health Centre) from 13.9.2013 and he applied for admission to the post graduation course and appeared for the entrance examination. The grievance of the writ petitioner/respondent is that though he is a service candidate and entitled to get additiona...
Keerthi Kailash Vs. The Dean (Agriculture)/Chairman Admissions, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent in connection with the impugned condition in so far as Degree and College Choice once made is final and cannot be changed as stated in Clause III (i) of Information Brochure for the year 2016 dated nil as well as the Joint Declaration obtained by him from the Petitioner and his son dated 5.7.2016 in regard to the above said condition and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent either to allot a seat in B.Sc (Agriculture) course in any one of the constituent college of the 1st respondent University or to transfer the petitioner's son from the 2nd respondent college to the constituent college of the 1st respondent.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. To that effect, he made the following ...
Maharaja @ V. Chinnakaruppan Vs. S. Muthukumar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
Common Judgment R. Mala, J. 1. The 2nd appellant, who lost the Appeal before the First Appellate Court, has come forward with the present Second Appeal. 2. The 1st respondent namely, S. Muthukumar, has filed a suit in O.S.No. 686 of 2003 before the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property. He has stated that the suit property was originally belonging to his family and by way of a registered partition deed dated 23.08.1978, Schedule - J property was allotted to him and the 1st defendant was allotted Schedule - C property and the total extent has been mentioned commonly in both C and F schedule properties. At the time of partition, the plaintiff was 6 years old minor and hence, the cousin of the plaintiff namely, Shankar was maintaining the suit property. In the mean time, when the 1st defendant has attempted to sell the entire property, namely, Schedule - C and J, immediately the plaintiff issued a notice. However, without ...
M/s. Industrial Venture Capital Limited Vs. Pradeep Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant for the following: a) for a sum of Rs.1,45,93,508.31 together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% on Rs.59,87,400/- from the date of plaint till realisation. b) for costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.1,45,93,508.31 together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% on Rs.59,87,400/- from the date of plaint till realisation, based on the document styled as loan agreement. 2. The plaintiff states that the defendant along with one S.N.Natarajan promoted a Company under the name of Neptune Inflatables Limited, with an authorised capital of Rs.3,50,00,000/- made up of 3,50,000 equity shares at Rs.10/- per share. It is stated that the defendant applied for a personal loan of Rs.59,87,400/- to the plaintiff for purchase of 3,52,200 equity shares of Rs.10/-...
J. Nijish Archibald Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to reissue the petitioner's passport bearing No.H0350281 after duly renewing the same by acting application Ref.No.16-1005980009 within the time limit 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 Respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, he was born out of wedlock between his mother Mrs.Vergin Inigo and his Biological Father Mr.Oliver Samarchibald on 09.07.1994. A Birth Certificate was also issued to him by the Nagercoil Municipality on 19.08.2008 under Regn.No.4011454. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that while he was 6 years old, his Biological Father died on 09.08.2000 and thereafter, his mother got remarried to one Jerala Gnanarathinam on 15.11.2002. His mother's new husband and his mother are taking care...
K. Govindaraj Vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent I.e.the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai to pass appropriate orders on petitioner review petition dated 24.08.2014 regarding the punishment of increment stoppage for a period of four years without cumulative effect.) ORDER 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Durga Parameshwari and Another Vs. The District Collector, Theni Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing to the respondents to survey, measure and demarcate the petitioners' land in accordance with their title deed and provide appropriate sub-divisions and consequently issue Patta in petitioners' names in respect of an extent of 10 cents of land forming part of larger extent of 2.76 Acres in S.No.615/2 Karattukattupulam, Alli Nagaram Village, Theni Taluk and District.) 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. The grievance the petitioners is that they had applied before the Second Respondent on 13.05.2015 seeking sub-division and issuance of separate patta in respect of their 10 cents in Sy.No.615/2, Karattukattupulam, Alli Nagaram Village, Theni Taluk and District. Also another representation dated 30.12.2015 was submitted by them before the First Respondent seek...
P. Krishnamoorthy and Others Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-1; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2 respectively, as well as the consequential order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-3 passed by the 2nd respondent both dated 20.06.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners; the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent. 2. The Petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-1; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2 respectively, as well as the consequential order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-3 passed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »