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.
Vembu Ammal Vs. Jeyakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Common Prayer:Contempt Petitions filed to initiate Contempt Proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for the willful disobeyance of the order of this Court passed in W.P(MD)No.20650 of 2014, dated 18.12.2014.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It comes to be known that the Revenue Tahsildar by means of proceedings, dated 5.2.2016, had passed an order rejecting the request for change of patta, made by the Petitioner/Vembu Ammal. In fact, the Revenue Tahsildar, Lalgudi, in the order dated 5.2.2016 had referred to this Court's order, dated 18.12.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.18.12.2014.As such, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 18.12.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.20650 of 2014 has been complied with by the Respondent/Contemnor. If at all, the Petitioner has a grievance against the order, dated 5.2.2016 passed by the Revenue Tahsildar, Lalgudi, then it is for the Petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent forum in t...
P. Selvakumar Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF Mandamus directing the respondents to provide alternative job to the petitioner (Driver) in the same scale of pay in the light of the Section 47 in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995.) 1. The petitioner herein, who is presently working as Driver in the Transport Corporation from 02.05.1997 and said to be suffering from pain in the spinal-cord, underwent MRI/CT Scan and has been advised by the Doctor to do only light works, hence, he has made a representation to the respondents to consider his case under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995. Since the said representation has not been considered so far, he has come to this Court. 2. A perusal of the MRI Scan report produced before this Court shows that Pre and para vertebral soft ...
Mohammed Asik Ali Vs. The Executive Officer, Lalgudi Town Panchayat, L ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of a Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to occupy the existing inner shop No.1 of Town Panchayat Bus Stand Complex, Lalgudi, Trichy District.) 1. Mr.Mohammed Asik Ali is a small scale business man, running a shop in the name and style of Nowsath General Stores at Shop No.1 in Town Panchayat Bus Stand Complex, Lalgudi, which was allotted by the Lalkudi Town Panchayat, vide proceedings, dated 17.08.2008, had originally allotted the said shop in 2006. The whole family of the petitioner is depending on the petitioner's income from the said shop measuring only 80 sq.ft. (8 x 10). While so, on 02.06.2015, the respondent issued a letter, demanding the petitioner to vacate the said shop within 24 hours on the request of the Tashildar to lay a service road attaching the Railway over bridge. Consequently, the petitioner handed over the inner side of shop No.1. He was als...
Sappida Vaanga Restaurant Services (P) Ltd., rep.by its Director C. Si ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal is preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 11 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of this Court dated 12.2.2010 in O.P.No.186 of 2007.) A. Selvam, J. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.2.2010 passed in Original Petition No.186 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The first respondent herein, as petitioner, has filed Original Petition No.186 of 2007 on the file of this Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated 6.1.2007 passed by the second respondent herein. 3. It is averred in the petition that the first respondent and petitioner have entered into an agreement dated 20.3.2003. The first respondent has agreed to supply food items to an average of 1500 persons per day. The price would be fixed on the basis of items supplied. Further it is agreed that the first respondent is not entitled to get anything towards escalation of ...
S. Kadambanathan Vs. The Secretary (incharge) Tamil Development Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: in both Writ Appeals: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 9.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.417 of 2011.) Common Judgment: 1. Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 9.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.417 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed W.P.No.417 of 2011 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 passed in G.O.(Ms.) No.428, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information Department dated 10.11.2010 and to quash the same. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been acting as hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Viswanathasamy Temple, Pattukottai and prior to him, his father by name G.Subramania Mudaliar has acted as hereditary trustee and managed the entire temple and its properties. After his demise, the petitioner h...
M/s Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Imp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent culminating in the detention notice dated 25.11.2004, issued from File S37/124/90-Gr.6 and quash the same. ) 1. Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging detention Notice dated 25.11.2004. The said detention notice came to be issued consequent upon the order passed under section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 30.08.2002. The petitioner had registered a project contract vide File No.S37/124/90 for import of components and reactors and agitators for fabrication and supply of leaching purification...
V. Annamalai Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer Nagapatti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pass orders for granting approval of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of National Higher Secondary School, Nagapattinam, based on the proposal forwarded by the 2nd respondent, dated 14.06.2016 with all consequential benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of to direct the respondents to pass orders for granting approval of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of National Higher Secondary School, Nagapattinam, based on the proposal forwarded by the 2nd respondent, dated 14.06.2016 with all consequential benefits, within a time frame. 3. The pet...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It transpires from the averments made at para three of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner interalia to the effect that his driver has shown all the original documents viz., Registration Certificate, Insurance, Goods Carriage Permit and Permit Chit, issued for transporting gravel. But, unfortunately, without looking into such documents, mechanically, the Second Respondent / Sub-Collector, Thackalay, Kanyakumari District, had directed the Third Respondent / Tahsildar, Vilavankodu, Kanyakumari District, to drag the vehicle to the Second Respondent's Office. Accordingly, the vehicle was taken and made to be parked inside the campus of the Second Respondent's Office. 3. At this stage, the Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, informs this Court that, as the vehicle viz., 'Taras Tipper Lorry', bearing Registration No.TN-45-AL-7399 was found engaged in transportation of minor mineral, without any transit pass...
M/s. Miller Knits, Tirupur Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tirupur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order made in I.T.A.No.1942/MDS/2015, dated 27.11.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order in I.T.A.No.1942/Mds/2015, dated 27.11.2015, for the Assessment year 2011-2012. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant, a firm, filed its return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 on 06.03.2013 admitting a total income of Rs.1,35,480/-. The income reported was processed, under Section 143(1). The case was taken up for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 16.08.2013. The appellant's authorised representative appeared and submitted the details and records. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 17.02.2014, as hereunder: i) The vouchers/bills were produced, for the expenses claimed under the heads "General Expenses" and "wages", out of which some of them were self...
P. Balasubramani Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Aravakuruchi Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order in C.M.P. No.4924 of 2016, dated 13.07.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in C.M.P.No.4924 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, the petitioner has directed this revision. 2. In connection with a kidnapping case, Aravakuruchi Police registered a case in Crime No.290 of 2016. Several persons were arrested. One of them is A5. He is the petitioner herein. In connection with the case, his Maruthi Omni Van TN 69 AA 6399 has been seized by the police. A5 filed the property return petition in C.M.P.No.4924 of 2016 for interim custody of the same. It was strongly objected to by the prosecution. 3. On 13.07.2016, considering the gravity and nature of the offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur dismissed the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would conten...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »