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.
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 5 prays for three months time to remove the stones in question from the Petitioners' patta land, as per communication of the 5th Respondent. 2. In this regard, it is pertinently points out that already two weeks time was granted to the Respondents No.1 to 5 on 18.07.2016 I.e., from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to remove the stones in question. 3. Considering the request made on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 5, this Court grants further three weeks time to the Respondents No. 1 to 5 to remove the stones in question and the Respondents No.1 to 5 are required to do the needful within the time granted by this Court, without any deviation whatsoever. 4. Registry is directed to list the matter on 08.09.2016...
The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Kolkatta and Others Vs. M/s. Shriram I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayers: Original Side Appeal under Section XXXVII of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, against the Order, dated 01.07.2011 made in O.P.No.199 of 2009. Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC read with Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules against the Order, dated 01.07.2011 made in O.P.No.199 of 2009.) Common Judgment P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These Original Side Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 01.07.2011 made in O.P.No.199 of 2009. 2. The petitioner in the Original Petition filed Original Side Appeal, challenging the order, confirming the Award, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the claims. The Cross-Objection was filed by the first respondent in the Original Petition, as far as reduction of interest rate. 3. The facts of the case in brevity so as to understand the dispute between the parties are as follows : (i) The app...
Sivanraj Vs. The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order in Cr.M.P.No.1990 of 2016 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, dated 07.03.2016.) Like two women claimed motherhood to a child before King Salamon, before me two persons Sivanraj/third party and Pandi/de-facto complainant in Crime No.119 of 2015 on the file of Alanganallur Police claims ownership to the auto bearing Registration No.TN 59 AQ 6509. In present day, we cannot give Solamon type justice. 2. Of course, it involves mind-boggling exercise. Yet, the matter totally rests on the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. The principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003(1) CTC 175 (SC)] that the case property Auto should not be allowed to expose to open sky, ultimately, it will become scrap value. 3. However, even to apply Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), the Court must find out the entitlement of th...
M. Rajendran Vs. The District Collector /Inspector of Panchayats, Tric ...
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 Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.Aa1/565/2013 dated 12.11.2015 and quash the same.) 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....
K. Muthu Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
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 leave salary while in service and leave salary payable at the time of retirement 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 Adv...
M/s. Chaitanya Builders and Leasing Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. Vijaya Padma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) for a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 as damage to loss together with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of plaint till the date of realization. b) for cost of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in respect of an alleged damage with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint. 2. The plaintiff is one of the leading construction company in the field for more than two decades and had executed several prestigious projects. The defendant was employed with the plaintiff from 16.04.2001. As the defendant did not meet the expectations of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had expressed displeasure about her performance. Hence, she resigned from the services in the year 2002 and took up a job in another company. Subsequently, during the ...
M. Uma Manickam Vs. The State represented by its the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 3.7.2014 and to take necessary action against the fourth and fifth respondents and to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioner's husband, the detenue, Manickam @ Poonga Nagar K. Manickam, S/o. Kuppusamy, aged about 54 years, Convict No.10822, detained in Central Prison, Salem.) 1. Heard the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. There is no appearance for the respondents 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 3.7.2014, and to take necessary action, against the respondents, and to safeguard the life and liberty of the husband of the petitioner, namely, Manickam @ Poonga Nagar K....
S. Sankara Pandian Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Another
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 grant old age pension to the petitioner by every month with arrears too, under Indira Gandhi Old Age Pension Scheme to the Petitioner.) 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 the senior citizen and eligible to obtain Old Age Pension as per the Indira Gandhi Old Age Pension Scheme, introduced by the Government. Earlier, he made an application before the Second Respondent and it was duly considered on 1.3.2013 and a separate Account Number was allotted to him. In fact, the said Account Number was 38659. He received a sum of Rs.1,000/-p.m from 1.3.2013 onwards. The specific case of the Petitioner is that till June 2014, he received the Old Age Pension and thereafter, he did not ...
P. Elangovan Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional P ...
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 Cetiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Enf.B7/TN/TR/27977/SRO-TRY/2015 dated 04.11.2015 and the consequential proceedings in RRC No.CBTRY5347/0027977/06/ 04/2016/525/35 dated 06.04.2016 communicated to the 2nd respondent herein quash the same.) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 04.11.2015 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 06.04.2016, whereby, he was directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,93,429.80/- to the respective Employee's Provident Fund account heads maintained at the State Bank of India within 15 days of the receipt of the order. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Though the petitioner has raised very many grounds in this Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on the simple ground th...
I. Sutha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary School Educatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed in W.P.No.22909 of 2006.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed in W.P.No.22909 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed W.P.No.22909 of 2006, on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 29.5.1997, in Na.Ka.No.12526/A2/97, passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently to allow the petitioner to continue as Secondary Grade Teacher with all monetary and other benefits, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has studied Secondary Grade Teacher Training Course in Kerala and also obtained necessary Certificate and as per G.O.Ms.No.1251, d...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »