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.
S. Meenakshi and Another Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent i.e. the District Collector Sivagangai District Sivagangai to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2016 for inclusion of her name in the approved list of Assistants of the year 2012.) 1. The petitioner is a Typist, working under the respondents from 11.09.2009 onwards. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though she is eligible to be included in the approved lists Assistant of the year 2012, the respondents did not do so, citing the reason that the petitioner has not completed the training in regard to the Survey and Land Records, before the crucial date of drawal of Assistants. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the respondents to send the petitioner for training in time. However, the respondents have belatedly sent the petitioner for training. Therefore, the fa...
Thiru Minor alias Kandasamy Vs. The District Revenue Officer, and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(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 respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu. 61584/2013(B6) dated 30.01.2015 and Moo.Mo.A5/4731/2012 dated 30.09.2012 respectively and quash the same.) 1. Challenging the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu. 61584/2013(B6) dated 30.01.2015 and Moo.Mo.A5/4731/2012 dated 30.09.2012 respectively, the petitioner has come to this Court. 2. The admitted case of the petitioner in this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner obtained a sale deed for an extent of 49 cents in survey No.305/1B from the respondents 4 and 5 and another son of fourth respondent. This sale deed is unregistered. The petitioner contends that based on the unregistered sale deed dated 15.11.1989, he was able to get patta for the land, by virtue of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 08.01.1990. The petitioner submits that he has o...
C. Sathish Kumar Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(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 consdier the Petitioner's representation dated 19.7.2016 pertaining to the issuance of patta for the house site bearing Plot No.6, measuring an extent of 3 cents out of 42 cents in R.S.No.207/4A2 in Melur Village, now in Melur Town, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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 1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, he had purchased 3 cents of house-site, bearing Plot No.6 out of 42 cents in Punja Survey No.207/4A2 of Melur Village from its owner Prem Vinoth, son of Sridharan, by means of registered sale deed, dated 30.4.2015 for a valuable consideration and the sale deed was registered as Document No.1982/2015. From the date of his purchase, he has been in possession and enjo...
Padmavathy Ammal and Another Vs. Rajendrakumar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 222 read with Section 276 of Indian Succession Act and Order XXV Rule 4 of Original Side Rules, by the plaintiff, for the following relief: a) She may be permitted and also allowed to prove the will in common form and that the probate thereof to have effect throughout the whole of Tamil Nadu may be granted to her; b) To pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit.) Common Judgment: 1. The original plaintiff had filed a petition under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1995 for issuance of probate with respect to the last will and testament of J.Kannabiran, dated 09.03.1982. The said will is an unregistered one. The testator died on 05.05.1982 at Chennai. The will is said to have been executed by J.Kannabiran in the presence of witnesses, namely S.M.Murugesan and P.Periaswamy. The original plaintiff is the mother of the testator. The defendants 1 to 3 are the children of the testator J.Kannabiran, born through Kamala...
Santhosh Devi Kothari and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax II, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the common order issued by the respondent dated 4.5.2005 in C.No.242/2005- 06 CIT-11/CBE and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned (PAN AEKPK0488J), (PAN AEKPK0499K), (PAN AEKPK0474J), (PAN AAHHR2112K), (PzAN AAHHR2113J) and (PAN AEKPK0473R) respectively. Common Order 1. Heard both. 2. In all these writ petitions, the prayer is identical, in as much as the petitioners questioned transferring their assessment to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Coimbatore. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that each of the petitioners were put on notice by the respondent against the proposed transfer and all of them submitted their objections and that the impugned orders have been questioned on the ground that reasons have not been furnished to the petitioners as mandated i...
M/s. Poppys Hotel Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9, 11(B) and 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to sanction the scheme of arrangement (demerger). ) Common Order: 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9, 11(B) and 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement (demerger) (in short Scheme) between the Demerged company with the Resulting company with effect from 01.07.2015. The Scheme is appended as Annexure 'E' to C.P.No.57 of 2016 and Annexure 'C' to C.P.No.58 of 2016. 2. M/s.Poppys Hotel Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.57 of 2016 is the Demerged Company and M/s.Poppys Vista Hotel Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.58 of 2016 is the Resulting Company. 3. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner companies have complied with the formalities as prescribed under the Companies Act and the Rules framed therei...
P. Rajmohan Vs. Apurva Varma, The Secretary, Home Department, Secretar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call upon the contemnor/respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10092 of 2015 dated 22.06.2015.) T. Raja, J. 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the order under contempt has been complied with, which is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Since the order under contempt is complied with, this Contempt Petition stands closed....
Vadamalayan Vs. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner for Land Refo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pass final orders on the recommendation of the District Revenue Officer, Theni in Na.Ka.No.12421/2012/D4, dated 23.12.2014 to cancel the allotment under the Bhoomidhan Act for violation of conditions of allotment by O.J.Murugesan and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 7.4.2016 for allotment of house site as landless poor for shelter within a reasonable time fixed by this court.) 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 1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is a landless poor person and that the property comprised in S.No.57/2A1, Veerapandi Village and Hamlet, Palanichettipatti, Theni Taluk, Theni District, vide Patta No.1446, measuring an exten...
State Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras, Yethapur Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed by the Court of Sessions, Salem Division, Salem in S.C.No.373 of 2012 dated 14.07.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State. The respondent is the sole accused in S.C.No.373 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Salem Division at Salem. The respondent stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 14.07.2014, the Trial Court acquitted him from both the charges. Challenging the same, the State has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Ayyammal. On 02.05.2012, the deceased had gone to a nearby forest taking the goats for grazing. At that time, it is alleged that the accused emerged there, attacked the deceased with a wooden log, killed her and then removed a pair of golden ear stu...
S. Tamilselvi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt 23.6.2016 in the light of the order passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. (MD) No. 17332/15 etc. and in the light of the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.116 Labour and Employment (P2) Department dated 6.8.2015 and 13.4.2016 and consequently absorb the petitioner as Junior Training Officer under the control of the 1st and 2nd respondents as done in the case of others on par with them.) 1. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and with the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the post of Block Manager under the control of the 1st and 2nd respondents. She was retrenched due to the sudden closure of the office of the 3rd respondent viz, Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Next ›
- Last »