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.
Amutha Vs. The Executive Officer, Thathaiyangarpettai Town Panchayat, ...
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 1st Respondent to restore the water supply connection to Petitioner house bearing D.No.46, Harijan Street, Thathaiyangarpettai Town Panchayat, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Second Respondent. However, counter of R1 is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner, her house is situated in Natham Survey Nos.781/73 and 781/74 and for her house, Property Tax is collected by the Town Panchayat, under Assessment No.2487. The electricity supply is under SC.No.669. The House Tax stands in the name of her mother. The Village Administrative Officer had given a certificate regarding her right over the aforesaid property. There is no dispute on these facts. However, in order to reach her house from Harijan Street, a lane is available, which is in S.No.781/71. As a matter of fact, the Second Respondent is re...
K. Chellaiah Vs. The Joint Director, Kallar Reclamation Office, Madura ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(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 of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the charge memo dated 20.07.2016 in Na.Ka.No.H.10/59955/2014 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner herein, who is working as Cook in the Government Students Hostel attached to Kallar Reclamation Higher Secondary School, Checkkanoorani, has been issued with a charge memo, questioning which, he has filed this writ petition raising various grounds. 2. Mr.N.S.Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner was dismissed from service, by an order, dated 27.07.2015, for the same charge, he challenged the said order, by filing an appeal before the appellate authority, taking a ground that, without issuing any charge memo or without holding an enquiry, he was dismissed from service, which mode is unknown to law. Accep...
R. Venu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary of Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in TIN-33213464331/2015-16 dated 27.06.2016 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional.) 1. When the matter was listed on 05.08.2016 for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, it was posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Oriental Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Che ...
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 second respondent, dated 07.06.2016, bearing No.Z.O.IX/R.D.C.No.Spl./2016-17, and to quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.K.M.Aasim Shehzad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and M/s.Karthikaa Ashok, learned counsel for respondents. With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the notice issued by the second respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2674622, being the property tax dues, for the period upto 1/2016-17. 3. It appears that the amount, which has been demanded, has been subsequently revised to Rs.25,73,066/-. 4. When the case came up for admission before this Court on 05.08.2016, the Officials of the Corporation, who were present in Court, informed the Court that assessment has been revised with effect from second half yea...
S. Murugeswari Vs. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(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 order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.614. /g.gp(bghwp 3) khnghfh/2011 dated 17.03.2011, quash the same, and consequently, direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in suitable post.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Dr. R. Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the first respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2015 and 06.07.2015 and thereby repost the petitioner at Alagappa Govt. Arts College, Karaikudi, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Bhuvaneshwari Vs. The Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Af ...
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 receive the Petitioner's representation, dated 08.02.2016 to correct the place of birth as Rajapalayam instead of Kalavasal in the Petitioner's Passport No.G5994273 based on the certificate issued by the Rajapalayam Municipality. 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, 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, after completing her School, she joined MEPCO Engineering College at Sivakasi and when she was pursuing her engineering studies, Passport Applications were called for by the Institution from all the Students and she applied through an Agency, along with other students. At the time of filling of her application regarding the place of birth, she had given her place of birth as Kalavasal instead of Rajapalayam . Inasmuch she was broug...
Mohan Kumar and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Inspec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Common Prayer in all the Criminal Appeals:- These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam in S.C.No.70 of 2013 dated 09.12.2015.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.802 of 2015 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.6 of 2016 is A.3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.233 of 2016 is A.1 in S.C.No.70/2013, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, Gobichettipalayam. A.1 stood charged for offences under Sections, 302 r/w 120(B) and 302 I.P.C; A.2 stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C and A.3 stood charged for offence under Section, 302 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. By judgment dated 09.12.2015, the trial Court convicted, A.1 for offences under Sections 302 r/w 120(B) and 302 I.P.C; A.2 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and A.3 for offence under Section 302 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. The trial Court sentenced A.1 t...
G. Geetha and Another Vs. B. Santha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the order of this Court dated 29-10-2010 made in C.S.No.413 of 2004.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-10-2010 passed in C.S.No.413 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, have instituted C.S.No.413 of 2004 on the file of this Court praying to pass a preliminary decree of partition wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. 3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the children of Govindarajan. The said Govindarajan has passed away on 07-06-1997 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 as his legal heirs. The suit property is the separate property of the said Govindarajan. Since he passed away on 07-06-1997, each plaintiffs is entitled to get one-fifth shar...
Nareng Padun Vs. The Director, Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the second and third respondents to disburse the petitioner's original certificates that the petitioner's had submitted before the 2nd and 3rd respondent at the time of admission.) 1. The matter is listed today under the caption for reporting compliance. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr. R. Anandaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.07.2016, the respondents 2 and 3 issued the original certificates to the petitioner for her appearance in the verification and after completing the verification, the same has been received by the respondents 2 and 3. 3. Recording the submissions, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »