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.
M/s. Cipla Ltd. Represented by Thiru Dr. Y.K. Hamied, The Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 24.06.2016 in C.C.No.9161 of 2010 pending on the file of the Hon'ble IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. This criminal original petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 24.06.2016 in C.C.No.9161 of 2010 pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by this Court, it is seen that M.Satyasheel Desai-A3 and Santhosh S Naik-A5 surrendered before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 08.08.2016 and they have been released on bail under Section 436 of Cr.P.C on they executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties. As regards Dr.Y.K.Hamied-A2 and this Court...
I. Amaladoss and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport, Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(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 entire terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commuted Value of pension and Leave salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment 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 Bench. 3. For r...
M.N. Nadar Primary School, Pudur Main Road, Melavaragunaramapuram, Thr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 6211/A2/2014 dated 13.07.2015 as far as deploying Mr.P.Selvam working as Secondary Grade Teacher with post from the petitioner school is concerned and and quash the same.) 1. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the similar issue has already been decided and dismissed by this Court vide this Court order, dated 10.08.2016, made in W.P(MD)No.13234 of 2015. The operative portion of the said order is extracted below:- 5. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 gives enormous powers to the respondents to find out whether a particular school has got sufficient or surplus te...
Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India, Thro' Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayers: W.A. Nos.1454 and 1455 of 2014 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 9220 and 9221 of 2014. W.P. Nos. 585 and 587 of 2012 have been filed praying this Court for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the first proviso to Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, insofar as and to the extent that it confers unguided power upon the Dept. of Telecommunications to claim a revenue share in respect of non-telecom activities of petitioner, as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. W.P. Nos.586 and 588 of 2012 have been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Department of the respondents can charge only License Fee/AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) from revenue earned from licensed activities. W.P. Nos.2165 to 2167 of 2013 have been filed praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records...
M/s. Sri Amman Chemicals Vs. The Chief Controller of Explosives, Petro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.20826 of 2016: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent connected with impugned order No.P-5(AN) Ports/2014, (A1743), dated 19.08.2015, and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to issue the P5 license to the petitioner firm viz., Sri Amman Chemicals, Karur. Prayer in W.P.No.20827 of 2016: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent connected with impugned order No.A/HQ/TN/P3/18, (A1100), dated 20.05.2016, and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner is a dealer in Ammonium Nitrate and was granted a licence in Form P-3 to store and trade in Ammonium Nitrate in terms of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2015, (Rules), framed under the Explosive Act, 1884, (Act). The petitioner applied for grant of licence in Form P-5 for ...
T.R. Jagadheesan and Others Vs. M. Ramadass Niadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 22.4.2009, passed in O.S.No.111 of 2007 by the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This appeal suit has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2009, passed in O.S.No.111 of 2007, by the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. 2. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed O.S.No.111 of 2007 on the file of the trial court, praying to pass a decree of specific performance in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 17.8.2006 so as to direct the defendants 2 to 7 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance of sale consideration and alternatively for the relief of recovery of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 have represented themselves that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiff with an intention to purchase the same,...
Chithiraikumar and Others Vs. The State represented by the Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records connected with the order dated 14.07.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.2840 of 2016 and Cr.M.P.No.2841 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to grant bail to the petitioners within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the bail granted to them by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, the petitioners have directed this revision. 2. The petitioners were concerned in a murder case in Crime No.73 of 2016 registered by Tactchanallur Police Station in Tirunelveli District. In Cr.M.P.Nos.1931 and 2242 of 2016, on 18.04.2016 and 29.04.2016, they were granted bail with a condition to appear before the Inspector of Police, Tactchanallur Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. They have executed the bail bonds and came out of jail. 3. Subsequently, the I...
R. Paneer Selvam and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(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 07 days, IRT Maintenance amount of Rs. 4360/- and Dearness Allowance payable to him 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 Bench....
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order, dated 15.06.2005 made in C.S.No.746 of 1992. Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC read with Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules against the Order, dated 15.06.2005 made in C.S.No.746 of 1992.) Common Judgment: (P. Kalaiyarasan, J.) These Original Side Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 15.06.2005 made in C.S.No.746 of 1992. 2. O.S.A.No.1 of 2006 is filed by the defendants against the decree entitling the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,70,165/- with interest at 12% and the Cross.Obj.No.41 of 2009 is filed by the plaintiff as far as rejection of their counter claim for the salvage operation. 3. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell are as follows : (i) The plaintiff firm is engaged in acquiring old ships / vessels for the purpose of breaking and retrieving usable materials...
Prakash Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore in S.C.No.271 of 2013 dated 27.02.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.271 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.02.2015, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 404 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2.The case...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »