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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. K.R.N. Prabhakaran (HUF ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order made in I.T.A.No.2716/Mds/2014, dated 22/6/2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this Tax Case Appeal, is to an order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.2716/Mds/2014, dated 22/6/2015, by which, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee is a HUF, filed its original return of income, on 14/3/2011, for the assessment year 2008 09, admitting income under the head income from other sources of Rs.8,72,770/- and NIL income under the head long term capital gain . In the return of income, the assessee further disclosed that the sale of its agricultural land at Keeantham village for Rs.9,25,47,000/- and the capital gain arising from the sale of the land, as exempt, because the assets sold was agricultural land situated beyond 8 Kms of municipal limit. Since the Assessing Officer reasoned to believe th...
Dhanalakshmi and Others Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and ...
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 20 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 20 cents in Sy.No.615/2, Karattukattupulam, Alli Nagaram Village, Theni Taluk and District. Also another representation dated 25.05.2015 was submitted by them seeking issuance of patta, based...
Saravanan Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 15.12.2016 in Memo No.111/BCDFGISSSV/2016 against the petitioner Saravanan, Male aged 30 years s/o.Anbumani, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu, who has been branded as Immoral Traffic Offender as per the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under the said act on the orders of the 2nd respondent by proceedings in No.111/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 15.02.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, one Mr.S.Senthilvel was the counsel on record. When this matter came up for ...
Samuel Jebakani Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.90 of 2016 in S.C.No.232 of 2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and set aside the order, dated 14.03.2016, and direct further investigation (or) re-investigation of the F.I.R., in Crime No.444 of 2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent which had culminated in the present Sessions Cases by a competent officer.) 1. Samuel Jebakani, the de facto complainant dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, dismissing his petition in Cr.M.P.No.90 of 2016 filed in S.C.No. 232 of 2015, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., seeking re-investigation. 2. Based on the complaint of the said Samuel Jebakani, the Thoothukudi North Police, registered a case in Crime No.444 of 2011, for 'Girl Missing'. The Investigation Officer conducted ...
The Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism (Admn.2) Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 24.08.2009 in W.P.Nos.44863 and 44864 of 2006 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The service dispute pertains to the claim made by the first respondents in both these appeals seeking consideration for appointment as Assistant Public Relation Officers (Publicity) in the available vacancies, while at the same time assailing the appointment of respondent Nos.2 to 7 by relaxation of the rules. 2. An order of appointment was issued appointing 8 persons as Assistant Public Relation Officers (Publicity) vide Office Order No.10. W.P.No.20591 of 1998 was filed by the said two first respondents seeking quashing of the said Office Order. But this writ petition failed vide order dated 24.06.2008. 3. The second set of appointment of six persons (respondent Nos.2 to 7) was made appointing them as Assistant Public Relation Officers (Publicity) vide G.O.Ms.No.273, dated 25.12.1999. This...
U. Subbaiyan Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State 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 respondent to pay provident fund, gratuity and leave salary with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner.) 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 that he has obtai...
S. Dhanalakshmi Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai
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 to sanction either old age pension or pension for the deserted woman by the husband to the petitioner on the basis of her representation dated 20.09.2013 and 29.07.2016 within the time frame fixed 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, her two sons are married and they are living separately. She and her next son/coolie worker, who is not having any regular income and earning only Rs.1,000/- per month are living separately. In fact, she was deserted by her husband and therefore, she had applied for financial assistance, being given to her by the Respondent, with all necessary records, on 20.09.2013. As a matter of fact, her application was received by the Respondent on 25.09.2013. Since there w...
S. Muthurajsakaravarthi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli Distri ...
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 not to lay any road without following the procedures contemplated under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, in the Petitioner's property in S.No.127/8 vide patta No.3990, situated at Navaladi Panchayat, Karachathu Puthur Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Thisaiyanvilai Sub-Register, Tirunelveli District by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 6.6.2016.) 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 No.1 to 4. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the property in S.No.127/8, measuring an extent of 0.8.50 hectare originally belongs to him and all revenue records and other title documents stands in his name. Further, he obtained the property through registered Settlement Deed, dated 26.2.2014(bearing Document No.509/20...
State Bank of India, Chennai Vs. S. Viswanathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.6.2016 passed in W.P.No.8407 of 2015 on the file of this court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This writ appeal is filed by the Bank against the order of the learned Single Jude in directing the Bank to permit the writ petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent his claim in the domestic enquiry. 3. Perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In paragraph 13 of the order, the learned Single Judge referred to the factual position. It appears that to enquire into the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner, the bank appointed the second respondent herein as Enquiry Officer. On the strength of clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002, the writ petitioner requested for a lawyer's assistance, however, the enquiry officer, did not accede his request, but, sought for the view of the disciplinary auth...
K. Manokaran Vs. The Municipal commissioner, Keelakarai Municipality, ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned order dated 19.07.2016 on the file of the Respondent No. 2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direction directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings proposed to be held on 22.07.2016 at 3 PM pertaining to Tamil Nadu Urban Road Infrastructure Programme in B.T. Roads Infrastructure Programme in B.T.Roads in Ward Nos.3,4,10,14,15,19 and 20 and in B.T.Roads and Paver Block Roads in Ward Nos.2,4,5,6,7,9,11,12 and 18 at Keelakari Municipality, Ramanathapuram District.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »