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.
Muthulakshmi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Trans ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus direct the respondents to sanction and pay the family pension to the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 03.08.2013 with interest and other consequential monetary benefits). 1. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was an employee of the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2003. Subsequently, the retirement benefits were given to the petitioner's husband. While so, the petitioner's husband expired on 02.08.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and two sons. The petitioner approached the respondents along with Death Certificate and Legal Heir Certificate with a request to disburse the family pension to her. Though the husband of the petitioner nominated the petitioner, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent on the ground that in the Service Register of the petitioner's h...
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Rep.by its Accounts Officer N ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: W.P.(MD).No.14136 of 2016: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 on the file of the first respondent herein in TIN 33853445549 / 2010-11 dated 01.08.2016 quashing the same, while directing the 1st respondent to forbear from proceeding with recovery pursuant to the impugned notice in TIN 33853445549 / 2010-11 dated 01.08.2016. W.P.(MD).No.14137 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Third Respondent herein to dispose the stay application filed by the petitioners in M.T.P.No.01/2016 arising out of M.T.A. No.19/2016.) 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessment done by the...
K. Mohanraj Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fill the existing vacancies to the post of Chief Engineer (Regular), Public Works Department, as per the panel notified by the first respondent in G.O. No.9, dated 06.01.2016 and to appoint the petitioner as a Chief Engineer (General).) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fill up the existing vacancy to the post of Chief Engineer (Regular), Public Works Department, as per the panel notified by the first respondent in G.O. No.9, dated 06.01.2016 and to appoint him as Chief Engineer (General). 2. (i) The petitioner would contend that he entered service under the Public Works Department as Assistant Engineer on 24.06.1981. After successive promotions, the petitioner is working as Superintending Engineer on 07.11.2013. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of...
M/s. Greymoore International Rep. by its Proprietor Coimbatore Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 11.02.2013 in W.P.No.1364 of 2011.) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order, made in W.P.No.1364/2011 dated 11.02.2013, by which, the writ court, declined to issue a Certiorari, and to quash the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore dated 14.12.2010, as illegal and contrary to the clarifications issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in D.Dis.Acts Cell-II/56922/2000, dated 25.9.2000 and Lr.No.L.Dis.Acts Cell-IV/80171/2002, dated 22.1.2003, binding upon him, as per Section 28-A(3) of the TNGST Act, 1959 insofar as assessment year TNGST 2004-2005 is concerned. 2. Facts as deduced from the material on record are that the appellant is a dealer registered under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the file of the respondent. The appellant is a contractor for windows and doors and mainly engaged in the nature of 'works contract', at the ...
K. Kalirajan Vs. The District Collector, Virudhungar District and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application dated 18.12.2015 submitted for the post of Village Assistant in any one of the villages preferably for Puliyampatti Village in Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhungar District.) 1. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was called for by the second respondent inviting him to appear for the post of Village Assistant. On receipt of the same, the petitioner also appeared in the interview held on 18.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has not been informed about his result. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation on 21.05.2016 and the same having not been responded, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. In view of the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is di...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. The impugned proceedings are issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Pattukkottai, calling upon the petitioner-firm to give a reply as to why a revision of assessment should not be made on the ground that there was an escapement of turn over to be assessed under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act. Challenging the said action of the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that as per old Act, since the respondent has not initiated any proceedings in the last five years or as per the new Act, within the six years, the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation and thus, it cannot be issued to the petitioner-firm. Secondly, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that when penalty was sought to be levied, as per the settled legal position of law, the petitioner-firm should have been given a personal hearing to defend his case, before passing the impugned orders. However, it is...
B. Sangeethkumar Vs. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 04.07.2013 in Na.Ka.No.A2/1421/2012 and the consequential order dated 22.07.2013 in Na.Ka.No.A2/1421/2012 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 04.07.2013 in Na.Ka.No.A2/1421/2012 and the consequential order dated 22.07.2013 in Na.Ka.No.A2/1421/2012. 2. By the first order, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to hand over 500 bags of cement pursuant to the cancellation of the contract and by way of the second order, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to hand over the 500 bags of cement and failure to hand over the said bags, the amount representing twice the cost of material will be deducted from the money withheld by the second respondent in connection with the various contract ...
Tvl. Amman Balaji Two Wheelers (Pvt.)Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.27191 of 2016 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records on the files of the second respondent in AP.No.VAT.57/2015, dated 27.11.2015, and to quash the same insofar as the adverse findings rendered against the petitioner is concerned.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepting notice for respondents. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical in nature, and the parties are one and the same, they have been taken up together, and disposed of by this common order, even at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Salem, in respect of the Appeals filed by them against the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,...
Saojinidevi Vs. The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Corporation, Tri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to receive property tax as well as water tax from the petitioner with regard to property situated at Trichy District, Srirangam Zone, Ward No.18, Door No.15, Krishnankovil Street, Trichy, in the light of the petitioner's representation dated 7.3.2014 within a stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to receive the property tax from the petitioner in respect of the property situated at Trichy District, Srirangam Zone, Ward No.18, Door No.15, Krishnankovil Street, Trichy, in the light of her representation dated 7.3.2014. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the property bearing D.No.15, Krishnankovil Street, Trichy, belongs to the petitioner by virtue of a Will executed by her mother-in-law in favour of her husband on 21.09.1988. Since the petitioner's mother-in...
Mahan @ Mahalakshmi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to initiate a patta cancellation proceedings in respect of Patta Nos. 806 and 1200 in Survey No.32/1A and 32/1B1 respectively in Poolathur Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2016.) 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, she and her sister filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2001, on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal, seeking to declare the two sale deeds dated 28.06.1999 and 30.06.1999 as null and void. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner on 11.10.2013. 5. It comes to be known that even after possessing the knowledge of the decree, one Jeya and Rani, who are the vendees approached the second respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Next ›
- Last »