Chennai Court August 2016 Judgments
P. Sivagnanam and Others Vs. State: by Deputy Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761 and 25054/2014 have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. Crl.O.P.Nos.21917 to 21919 of 2015 have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in new C.C.No.21 of 2008 (Old C.C.No.122 of 2006) pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. Crl.O.P.No.32319 of 2014 has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 10.12.2008 in C.M.P.No.41 of 2008 in C.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.) Common Order 1. Criminal Original Petition Nos.2898, 23761 and 25054 of 2014 have been filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Surendran Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct the enquiry proceeding in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.1508/1425/A2-2 on the file of the 3rd respondent by appointing a neutral enquiry officer without the influence of the 3rd respondent, based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2016. 1. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Elephant Mahout on 11.11.2005, on a daily wage of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of appointment. On his representation made on 17.07.2006 to the 3rd respondent/Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer, Samayapuram, Trichy, he was brought under monthly wages from daily wages, by order dated 13.10.2009 of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, since the Temple Elephant due to its old age, was surrendered to the Forest Authorities, he had been deputed to various other works in the Temple. 2. In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioner woul...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Aaiyuram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2.The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, whereby, the order of transfer dated 03.08.2016 transferring him from the Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District to the Office of the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District, has been cancelled. While the petitioner was transferred by order dated 03.08.2016, it is not known why the said order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 23.08.2016. 3. This Court also finds no reason why his previous transfer order dated 03.08.2016 has been cancelled. It is well-settled legal position that no transfer order requires to be a speaking order. However, when such orders are cancelled, reasons are to be assigned. When there is no such reason given, the same is liable to be stayed for the ti...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kannan Vs. Kasthuri and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 11.03.2016, made in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2016 in M.C.No.34 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Dindugul and set aside the same.) 1. The fight is between a C.R.P.F. Jawan / revision petitioner and his wife / first respondent. However, there is no fight between the Jawan and his daughter / second respondent. 2. The respondents have sought for maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in M.C.No.34 of 2014. Originally, it was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindugul and subsequently, it was transferred to the Family Court, Dindugul. 3. On 20.01.2015, the revision petitioner was set ex parte and the respondents were awarded Rs.4,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. 4. To set aside the said ex parte order, the revision petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2016, before the Trial Court. However, it was dismi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ravichandran and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 payment of a. Gratuity amount - Rs.7,63,915/- b. Earned Leave - Rs.10,963/- c. Payment of Commuted Value of Pension - Rs.2,89,201/- and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest within the stipulated time. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle payment of a. Gratuity amount - Rs.6,89,867/- b. Earned Leave - Rs.3,31,672/- c. Payment of Commuted Value of Pension - Rs.2,86,690/- d. Institute of Road and Transport Technology (IRTT) Fund and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest within the stipulated time. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle payment of a....
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Hanif Shah Vs. ARMS - A Division of Arcil (Asset Reconstructi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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) declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property described in schedule to the plaint; b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, person or persons, acting through or under them, for and on behalf of them, from in any manner, whatsoever, interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment, occupation, use or dealing with the plaint schedule mentioned property or any part thereof; c) for costs of the suit;) 1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property described in the 'B' schedule and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, person or persons, acting through or under them, for and on behalf of them, from in any manner, whatsoever, interfering with the peaceful poss...
Tag this Judgment!A. Durai and Others Vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 payment of Gratuity amount, Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Payment of Commuted Value of Pension and otherretiral benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble 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...
Tag this Judgment!Rosammal Memorial Minority Vs. S. Kalaichelvan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for disobedience of the order dated 04.02.2016 in W.P.No.4232 of 2016. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the respondent relating to the proceedings dated 24.06.2016 bearing Reference No.TNTEU/R/CC/2016/913 asking the petitioner once again to obtain recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as per "New National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 08.08.2014, grant affiliation for the B.Ed. Course to the petitioner-institution based on the recognition already granted by NCTE on 03.03.2014, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, dated 13.12.2013 in Writ Appeal No.1138 of 2012.) Commo...
Tag this Judgment!Elangovan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ariyalur, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part 2) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (Part-2) IPC. The trial Court, altered the offence of Section 302 IPC and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC, as noted above. 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction of the appellant/accused is that the appellant/accused is the grand-son of the deceased Dhanabhagiyam. P.W.1/de-facto complainant is the father of the appellant/accused. The deceased Dhanabhagiyam was residing along with her son P.W.1. The deceased had been receiving the old-age-pension of R...
Tag this Judgment!T.A.S. Rajkapoor Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Boar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for the Petitioner's son viz., R.Ahamed Haroon Sathaki for his marriage to be held on 04.09.2016 at Samayapuram, Trichy District, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. It comes to be known that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition in directing the Second Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for his son R.Ahamed Haroon Sathaki's marriage to be held on 04.09.2016 at Samayapuram, Trichy District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court. 5. As on date, the Petitioner had addressed a representation to the Second Respondent on 08.08.2016, in the subject mat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »