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.
Vaikundamal Vs. State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vell ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the case in Crime No.197 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.197 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 452, 323 and 506(2) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent pol...
M.K. Kaja Mohideen Vs. Dwadasi Annadhana Dharmakattalai attached to Ta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi in A.S.No.95 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2005 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi in O.S.No.305 of 2004.) 1. The defendant, who lost the legal battle in both the Courts below, has filed the second appeal to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi in A.S.No.95 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2005 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi in O.S.No.305 of 2004. 2. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of possession and recovery of rent arrears amount and claiming damages for use and occupation and costs stating that the property is belonging to the respondent/plaintiff and the defendant/appellant entered into a rental agreement from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2001 for a period of three years fixing th...
M/s. Kohinoor Agencies, Puducherry Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-IW, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.16087 of 2014:-This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in APRR.No.16/PGST/2012-13, dated 30.08.2012, and quash the same as being illegal, invalid and unjustified on facts and law and contrary to the principle of natural justice and further direct the second respondent to pass order afresh and issue such further Writ.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindaraj, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), and with the consent on either side, these Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.16087 of 2014, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT), dated 30.08.2012. The said order pertains to an appeal filed by the petitioner against th...
Everest Mariyappa Nadar Higher Secondary School rep. By its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the Order of this Honourable Court dated 02.06.2016 in WP.(MD).No.9718/2016 amounting to Contempt of Court under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It appears that the respondent/contemnor had passed the order on 10.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1551/A3/2015, inter alia stating that the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016 was examined and apart from that, the petitioner was informed at the time of deployment, his request would be considered. 3. In the instant case on hand, it cannot be said that the respondent/contemnor had not considered the petition dated 17.03.2016. In fact, after examining the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016, the order came to be passed as stated supra. If at all the petitioner has a grievance against the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by t...
K. Palanisamy and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State T ...
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 settle payment of (a) gratuity amount Rs.4,19,859/- (b) settlement benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest.) 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, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additi...
M/s. Haniffa and Sons Rep. by its Managing Partner, Peer Mohideen Vs. ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned order made by the 3rd respondent dated 14.09.2015 in respect of tender I.D.No. 2015-RDTN- 49394-1 and 2015 -RDTN- 49160-1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently consider the Petitioner's price bid in respect of Package No: TN/TUT/17/2015- 16 TNRRIS/15-16 and TN/TUT-11/2015-16 TNRRIS and accord the said tender work in favour of the Petitioner.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 30.07.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid letter and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
D. Muniasamy Vs. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department and ...
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 pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2016 which relates to granting of 4th and 5th review benefits and pay Revision and pension revision, in the light of the G.O.MS No.61, Transport (C) Department, dated 30.04.2015 and in terms of Settlement dated 22.01.2011 entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not given the benefits both under the Settlement and as per the Government Order. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. At this juncture, learned ...
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Salem Vs. Padmasini Ammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition No.2186 of 2016 filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order and decrettal order dated 26.09.2013 made in R.E.A.No.58/2013 in R.E.P.No.128/2009 in LAOP No.82 of 1978 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Salem.) Common Order 1. Challenging the Order passed in R.E.A No.58/2013 in REP No.128/2009 in LAOP No.82/1978 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Salem, the Judgment Debtor has filed the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.2186 of 2016. The Civil Revision Petition No.2187 of 2015 arises against the order passed in R.E.A.No.60/2013ub REO Bi.129/2009 in LAOP No.83/1978 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Salem, the Judgement Debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Pursuant to the decree passed in LAOP Nos.83/1978 and 82/1978, the claimants filed Execution Petitions in R.E.P No.128 and 129 of 2009 for realising the amount. 3. The Judgment Debtor filed his counter and was contesting the Execution Petitio...
R. Vasanthi Vs. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Karur Taluk, Karur Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Ni.Mu.RTR/5191/2011, dated 05.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Ni.Mu.RTR/5191/2011, dated 05.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts that propelled the petitioner herein to file the present writ petition, as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, are as follows: 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the property measuring an extent of 55 cents in S.No.124 and another property measuring an extent of 60 cents in S.No.123/2 in Lakshmi Narayana Samuthiram Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District, were owned by one Arumuga Asari, ...
G. Kanthan Vs. The District Collector, Virudhungar District and Anothe ...
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 Panakkulam Village in Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhungar District.) 1. Mr.G.Kanthan, was issued with a call letter dated 09.12.2015 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 12.05.2016 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 directed to c...