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. Murugapandi Vs. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Ram ...
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 to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2014 and take appropriate action against the respondent No.3 and 4 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 within the time period stipulated by this Court.) 1. This writ petition is listed today under the caption for withdrawal on the basis of letter of requisition given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the Registry. 2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Saroja (died) and Others Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Contemnors herein as per the order of this Court, dated 10.06.2016 made in S.A.No.544 of 2015.) The Second Appeal has been 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. 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 filing of the above Second Appeal is abuse of process of this Court as the very same appellants (Contemnors) have also filed another Second Appeal arising out of the very same judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, in S.A.S.R.No.17855 of 2013 with a delay of 997 days and that an application seeking to condone such delay came to be dismissed on 4.3.2014, after hearing both sides. He further contended that even after the dismissal of the...
P. Murugiah and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Ti ...
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 dues 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 sub...
Mankind Pharma Limited, New Delhi Vs. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the fair and decretal order dated 19.03.2015 passed in A.Nos.431 and 432 of 2015 in C.S.No.847 of 2014.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The original plaintiff/respondent, pharmaceutical company has sued the first defendant/appellant, as also the second respondent/ C and F agent as the second defendant on account of the use of identical trademark by the appellant in respect of identical products. The trademark of the first respondent/original plaintiff is ''ADMENTA'' and the appellant is using ''ADMENSIA''. 2. The original plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application for injunction and interim orders were granted in favour of the original plaintiff. The appellant, as defendant, moved for vacating the stay and also raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 3. The impugned order has dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction and opined i...
G. Kannan Vs. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Virudhunagar a ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice in Form No.9, dated 11.07.2016 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of the surcharge decree vide Na.Ka.No.4942/2009 Sa.Pa. dated 28.11.2011 until disposal of the C.M.A(CS)No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal (Principal District Court), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.) 1. G.Kannan, S/o Late P.Gnanasundara Reddiyar, who was elected as a President of SP.SPL 69 Kollapatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, for the period from 01.01.1996 to 24.05.2001, suffered surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Srivilliputhur, passed an order on 28.11.2011 directing the pet...
Panchavarnam Vs. Poochiammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.69 of 2003, dated 20.08.2004, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.781 of 1995, dated 04.02.2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Madurai Town.) 1. The defendants, who lost the legal battle in both the Courts, have come forward with the Second Appeal, challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.69 of 2007, dated 20.08.2004 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai by confirming the Judgment and Decree, passed in O.S.No.781 of 1995, dated 04.02.2003, by the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.781 of 1995 for a declaration of title and recovery of possession stating that the...
S. Natarajan and Others Vs. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transpor ...
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.4,79,370/- towards Leave Salary together with 18% interest per annum and also interest amount towards the delayed payment of Gratuity amount Rs.5,97,462/- for the period from 01.05.13 to 27.01.16 as per Sec.7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and further directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay him interest amount towards the delayed payment of Pension Commutation amount Rs.3,24,862/- for the period from 01.05.13 to 30.10.13 at the rate of 18% interest within a time frame as may be 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 Benc...
Tvl. Malliga Traders Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the revision of Assessment orders passed by the 3rd respondent in TIN No.33935780683/2014-15 dated 15.06.2016 (received by the petitioner on 22.06.2016) and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing.) 1. Tvl. Malliga Traders represented by its Proprietorix Tmt. P.Malliga has challenged the impugned proceedings issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Additional), Sattur, Viruthunagar District in TIN No.33935780683/2014-15 dated 15.06.2016, which is appealable before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar within 30 days of receipt of that order. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under TN VAT Act 2006 and also an assessee in the books of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has been carrying on a business in match raw materials. After purchasing the raw materials from ot...
P. Athi Uthanda Velayutham Vs. Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corp ...
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 dues 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 sub...
K. Thalapathi Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
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 pay the terminal benefits amount including leave salary, service surrender leave salary, dearness allowance arrears for 24 months together with 18% interest and also 18% interest for the belated payment of gratuity, commuted value of pension from the date of retirement to till the date of payment made to the petitioner and all other attendant benefits within the period 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 conside...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »