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.
E. Manickam Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the withheld DCRG amount from the date on which it was withheld till the date of actual payment of the same and also interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the release of 25% of petitioner's withheld pension.) 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a Senior Citizen, aged about 75 years. He retired on 31.07.1998 as Executive Engineer as per the proceedings dated 31.07.1998 of the first respondent. On his retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs.6,138/- and DCRG of Rs.2,34,944/- was sanctioned to him, however, a sum of Rs.58,726/- was deducted from the DCRG of the petitioner towards a probable pecuniary loss that would be caused to the respondents corporation and he was paid only Rs.1,76,208/- out of Rs.2,39,944/- as per the proceedings dated 05.12.1998 of the first respondent. Thereafter, a...
M/s. Sri Gayathri Enterprises, Salem Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records from the files of the respondent in TIN No.33162802382/2007-08, dated 01.06.2016, received on 25.06.2016, and to quash the same as being contrary to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.23358 - 23363 of 2014, dated 28.08.2014, and the principles laid down in the case of (Interfit Techno Products Ltd., Vs. Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another) reported in (2015) 81 VST 389.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is identical in nature, and the parties are one and the same, these Writ Petitions have been taken up together, and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr.Mr.V.Srikanth, for Mr.C.Venkatraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai and learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent. With the consent on either side...
Chandramohan Vs. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Viru ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 23.6.2016 and to enhance the fishery lease period for further five years in respect of Paikulam Tank situated at Thalaivankottai Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District in the light of G.O.ms.No.332(Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (FS-IV) Department, dated 17.11.1993.) 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 Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, on 28.12.2015, the Second Respondent/The Assistant Engineer, PWD/WRO, Upper Vaippar Basin Sub-Section, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District had conducted auction to lease in respect of fishing right in Paikulam Tank, Thalaivankottai Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District. He was the successful bidder in the said ...
Mehaboob Ali Vs. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayaer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) at Coimbatore, in S.C.No.89 of 2015, dated 24.03.2016.) S. Nagamuthu.J. 1. The appellant, aged hardly 19 years an Engineering College drop-out, stands convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused hails from the State of West Bengal. The deceased, in this case, was one Miss.Nima Lama Bhutia. She was also hardly aged about 19. She also hailed from the State of West Bengal. The accused had fallen in love with the deceased, while they were studying. Then, they eloped in the State of West Bengal and marrie...
V. Mary Ajitha Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welf ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2016 and 08.06.2016 seeking request transfer and consequently to grant a direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pass an order of transfer transferring the petitioner from the Primary Health Centre at Thondi, Ramanathapuram District to Padmanabhapuram Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai Government Hospital or Kothanalloor Primary Health Centre at Kanyakumari District.) 1. Ms. V. Mary Ajitha, has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2016 and 08.06.2016 seeking request transfer from the Primary Health Centre at Thondi, Ramanathapuram District to Padmanabhapuram Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai Government Hospital or Kothanalloor Primary Health Centre at Kanyakumari District. ...
Kannan @ Muthukrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6/2016/A1 dated 15.07.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016.) 1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 15.07.2016, of the third respondent on the ground that, without notice to the petitioner, the respondents have brought the hotel run by him to public auction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been granted licence to run the hotel in question for the last six years without any complaint whatsoever from the public. He spent about Rs.20 Lakhs for its interior works. While so, all of a sudden, the respondents have brought the hotel in question to public auction leaving the petitioner...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner / Company has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent / Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Thirunelveli, to accept the sum of Rs.36,24,640/-, being claimed by them, as deficient stamp duty, in regard to the instrument viz., Sale Deed document, bearing Registration No.2200/1999, (Registered on 16.11.1999), with the Third Respondent from the Petitioner and upon deposit of the aforesaid sum under protest - (i) keep the same by way of interest bearing Fixed Deposit and appropriate or refund the same subject to the final outcome of the adjudication proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and also the final outcome of C.M.A.No.501 of 2009; (ii) clear the Encumbrance and release the charge pertaining to the said property viz., property situated at No.12/5A, 12/5B, 12/5C, 12/5D, 12/5A1 and 12/5A2, Vilavankode Village, Palliyadi Taluk, Kanyakumar...
D.K. Ravichandran and Another Vs. Cream Investment and Trading Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 11.7.2008 in O.P.Nos.633 and 634 of 2006, passed by the learned single Judge.) Common Judgment: A. Selvam, J. 1. These Original Side Appeals are directed against the common order, dated 11.07.2008, passed in Transfer Original Petition Nos.633 and 634 of 2006, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants herein, as petitioners, have filed Transfer Original Petition Nos.633 and 634 of 2006, on the file of this Court, praying to set aside the award dated 27.11.2002, passed by the Arbitrator. In both the petitions it is averred that the petitioners have become constituent of the first respondent/trading member. The first respondent is having its registered office at Mumbai and Administrative Office in Coimbatore. The first respondent is a member of Natio...
M.S. Malliga Vs. The District Collector, The Nilgiris and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to close down the TASMAC liquor Retail Vending Shop Number 8208 situated at No.14, Mount Road, Near Tamilagam Hotel, Coonoor, The Nilgiris.) 1. Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Zakkir Hussain, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, and with their consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to close the TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.8208 and the bar located at No.14, Mount Road, Near Tamilagam Hotel, Coonor, The Nilgiris. 3. The petitioner's case is that the shop is situated in the heart of the Coonor town which is a busy commercial area and the existence of the shop is causing great nuisance to the public. In the regard, the petitioner has fil...
Rosebai Vs. The Executive Officer, Kanyakumari District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(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 assess the house tax for the Door No.20/20, having old No.21/11B1 situated in S.No.280/14A and 280/12A of Pacode Village, Vislavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District in the name of the Petitioner by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 30.6.2015) 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 Petitioner, she is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.280/14A and 280/12A of Pacode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The said property was settled by her husband in her name by way of Settlement Deed bearing Doc. No.2617 of 2011. Therefore she has become the owner of the property. Even at the time of settlement, there was a house in the said property, which was constructed...