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.
S. Ramakalanjiyam and Others Vs. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner with interest within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 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 subm...
S.A. Abdul Majid Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanjavur D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose the petitioner's application dated 24.11.2014 pending before the 1st and 2nd respondents with regard to the cancellation of patta granted in favour of the deceased Mohideen Abdul Hameed and his legal heirs and issue the separate patta in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner's family members within the time frame 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, his mother by name S.T.Hallima Beevi had a property in Sy.No.455 measuring an extent of 30 cents out of total 4 acres 2 cents in Valoothoor Village, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. In fact, the said property was purchased by his mother by way of a registered sale deed. She was in possession and enjoy...
Saroja and Others Vs. S. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2008 made in A.S.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri reversing the Judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 made in O.S.No.307 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Ponneri in A.S.No.9 of 2008, dated 15.12.2008 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri in O.S.No.307 of 2000, dated 20.11.2007. 2. This Court on 6.8.2016 ordered notice to the respondent also by permitting private notice. Consequent upon service of such notice, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel. When the matter was listed before this Court on 10.6.2016 under the caption ''Notice of motion'', the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present Second Appeal is filed as an abuse of process of this Court, as the very same appellants have al...
The General Manager, Union of India owning Western Railway, Mumbai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2000 in complaint No.2 of 97 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The petitioners challenge the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal - 1st respondent herein, in holding that the decision taken by the petitioners / respondents in Complaint No.2/1997 to increase the value of the land in question by 10% every year, is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis, had filed this writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, briefly narrated are as follows:- [A] The Ministry of Railways [Railway Board] had framed guidelines dated 17.09.1985 in No.83/W2/LM.18/87 for rationalisation of guidelines for commercial licensing of railway lands and also indicated that the revised guidelines will come into force with effect fr...
Petitioner Vs. Responden
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
1. The petitioner seek condonation of delay of 685 days caused in preferring appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 2. The respondent / accused has been prosecuted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in S.T.C.No.2 of 2011, for his alleged commission of offence under Section 7(a)(1)(2), Section 41 Rule 61-E and Section 41 Rule 61-F of the Factories Act, 1948 (Amended Act, 1987) and Tamil Nadu Factory Rules, 1950. 3. The Trial Court, considering the evidence on record, on 30.09.2013, acquitted the accused. As against that, as stated already, there is a delay of 685 days in preferring the criminal appeal. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that sufficient reasons have been given in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health-1, Madurai. Opinion of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has been obtained. Thereafter the file went through different administrative departments...
V. Selvaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the Detenue namely Ilavarasi, D/o.V.Selvaraj aged about 19 years before this Court and set her at liberty.) K.K. Sasidharan, J 1. The second respondent police produced the detenue before us. The detenue informed us that she left the petitioner and went to Kodaikanal out of her own voli tion. We also examined the petitioner, who appeared before us. 2. The detenue wanted to go with the petitioner. 3. The detenu is a major. She is set at liberty. 4. The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with the above observation....
K. Sangaiah and Others Vs. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.5,44,745/- towards Gratuity and Rs.2,54,657/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 30.09.13 payable pursuant new wage settlement together with 18% interest per annum and further directing the respondents to pay him arrears of pension for the period from 01.10.13 by revising his pension together with 18% interest per annum after calculating all his terminal/pension benefits based on the monthly wages payable to him on the month of his retirement I.e.September, 2013 by revising the same as per the settlement dated 13.04.2015 as ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its Order dated 29.01.16 in W.A.(MD) No.1457/15 and etc., batch.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Wr...
N. Golusappan Vs. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelve ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits including Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, Earned Leave wages for 66 days, Medical Leave wages for 50 days and Dearness Allowance payable to the petitioner along with monthly pension with reasonable rate of interest within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 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...
V. Prabakaran and Others Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Joint IV Sub-Registrar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the registered document presented before the respondent within the time fixed by this Court based on the representation of the Petitioners, dated 6.8.2016.) 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 Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioners, their representation, dated 6.8.2016 addressed to the Respondent has not been considered one way or other till date, The prayer sought for by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition is to the effect that their sale deeds presented before the Respondent/The Sub-Registrar, Joint IV Sub-Registrar Office, Palanganatham, Madurai 625 003 are to be considered and registered as per Law. It appears that till date the representation of the Petitioners is pending . 5. Considering the limited praye...
Y. Anto Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to provide the petitioner appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post depending upon the petitioner's qualification in the respondent's corporation within a reasonable time.) 1. Mr.Y.Anto, S/o Late Yesudhasan, has come to this Court seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide him appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post depending upon his qualification in the respondent-corporation within a reasonable time. Further, now the petitioner seeks another relief directing the respondents to pay all benefits including the death and retirement benefits, Gratuity, family pension to his mother. 2. Mr.K.Sathiyasingh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner's father ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »