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.
P. Veerabathiran and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Chennai a ...
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 respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2016 which relates to granting of 4th 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 Standing...
Sam Denial Raj Vs. State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Kanyaku ...
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 Mandamus directing the first respondent to instruct to 2nd and 3rd respondents to stop the foisting false cases continuously against the petitioner based on the petitioner representation dated 21.03.2014 forthwith.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to instruct the respondents 2 and 3 to stop the foisting of the false case continuously against the petitioner, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2014 forthwith.2. The case of the petitioner is that few false complaints were given against the petitioner before second respondent and the criminal cases were also registered against him in Crime No.266 of 2009 and 271 of 2009. The petitioner states that without stopping with the complaints which are pending before the second respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 are foisting and fabricating cases against the petitioner and ad...
Selvam @ Thiruvarutchelvam Vs. Veerasamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Special Subordinate Judge No.II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram.) 1. Having been not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.4,24,035/-, the appellant, being the claimant, has approached this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation as well as on the ground of liability. 2. The alleged accident was taken place on 10.10.2010 at about 6.30p.m near Kanai Ayyanar Koil at Villupuram District involving a TATA AC Van bearing Regn.No.PY 01 AW 5389 (first respondent herein). It is alleged that in the said accident, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries on all over his body. P.W.2- Dr. Ravindran, while examining the appellant/claimant clinically, had fixed the disability at 60%. However, the Tribunal had reduced the percentage of the disability at 50%. 3. It is revealed from the records that the injured was ag...
B. Subramanian and Others Vs. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking overhead electricity lines across or from laying electricity towers in the properties bearing Sl. No New S.No Extent Hec. Ares 1) 29/1 0.32.50 2) 30/2 0.41.50 3) 32/2 0.35.00 4) 37/- 0.98.50 1st Petitioner 5) 194/4 0.19.00 6) 195/- 0.58.50 7) 252/- 0.46.00 8)60/2 0.36.50 9)61/1 0.42.00 10)61/2 0.79.50 11)66/6 0.02.00 12)66/8 0.02.00 2nd petitioner 13) 13/5 0.06.5014)21/1 0.36.50 15) 22/3 0.37.00 16) 24/1 0.47.50 17)24/4 0.30.50 18)66/7 0.06.20 19)23/2 0.11.50 3rd petitioner 20) 27/1 0.15.50 21) 24/2 0.28.50 4th petitioner in Siruvanthadu Village Villupuram District except of law) 1. Since the respondent Electricity Board is required to get permission to enter upon the property of an individual for erecting High Tension Wires, towers or to draw cables, as per Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885, the District Collecto...
GDA Technologies Limited Vs. ---------
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Petition filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules 9,11(a)(10) and 79 of the Company Court Rules, 1959, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation. 1. This Company Petition is preferred under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules 9,11(a)(10) and 79 of the Company Court Rules, 1959, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation with effect from the Appointed Date. The scheme of amalgamation (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure F to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in this petition is the transferor company. The transferee company, i.e., Larsen and Toubro Infotech Limited, has its registered office at LandT House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001. It is stated that the transferor company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioner has complied with the prescribed procedure. Certificate of the Chartered Accountant dated 31.07.2015 has been filed stating there...
V. Krishnan Vs. The Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: in WP.No.31619/2015 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to order vide Circular No.BPCL:LPG:PKD:SR:2015-16/03/Coimbatore, dated 26.03.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to hire trucks for transport of LPG Cylinders from supply location to all the godowns or other premises of the Distributors in the Coimbatore LPG Territory by inviting public tenders in a fair and transparent manner and allot loads at par to all transporters and Distributors.) Prayer in WP.No.5161/2016 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of declaration declaring that the conditions that had been laid down in the tender duly called for by the Deputy General Manager, Regional Contract Cell, Southern Regional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, 8th Level, Indian Oil Bhavan, No...
R. Manivannan Vs. R. Venkatesan, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, Reven ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience and contumacious defiance of direction passed by this Court in the order dated 17.02.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.8460 of 2008 and prosecute andpunish the respondents for the Contempt of Court.) 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wants to withdraw this Contempt Petition. He has also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Contempt Petition. 2. Hence, this Contempt Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn....
Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School Vs. The Director of School Educat ...
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 third respondent to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the Petitioner on 19.07.2013 for approval of the School Committee within the time frame 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 to 3. 4. According to the Petitioner/School, it is having permanent recognition in respect of the standards 6th to 10th and the Petitioner/School is getting periodical approval for Higher Secondary Course. Furthermore, the Educational Agency is periodically selecting School Committee Members and the same is being approved by the Third Respondent/The District Educational Officer, Tiruchirappalli. In fact, the Third Respondent had approved the School Committee as per order, dated 12.01.2012 for three years w.e.f.19.9.2011...
Durai Ezhilan and Others Vs. The Aruna Sugars Higher Secondary School, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayers: WP No. 2510 of 2011:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent culminating in order dated 30.10.2010 in C.M.A. No. 66 of 2009 and consequently the order of dismissal dated 13.03.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the said orders and further direct the first respondent to disburse all retirement benefits to the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum treating the petitioner had attained superannuation in the normal course of service, on the normal date of retirement. CRP (PD) No. 624 of 2014:- Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.09.2013 passed in I.A. No. 246 of 2013 in O.S. No. 161 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vriddachalam.) Common Order 1. As per the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, these writ petitions as well as the Civil Revis...
P. Abdul Azeez Vs. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporat ...
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 respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.05.2016 and 23.07.2016 in accordance with condition No.44 stipulated in the tender publication issued by the respondent Corporation.) 1. The petitioner is the successful bidder relating to Item No.7 of the Tender called for by the respondent Corporation for collection of fees in respect of the vehicles entering and parked in the area specified in the Tender publication. While so, the licensee of Item No.4 and his henchmen had trespassed into the petitioner's lease-hold area specified with four boundaries. Since the said action is violative of the tender condition, the petitioner sent representations on 10.05.2016 and 23.07.2016 to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with tender condition No.44, but, till date, no action has been taken by the respondents, hence, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »