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.
Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the Petitioner's representation, dated 10.12.2015 and to conduct proper enquiry in respect to the issuance of joint Patta No.1297 in S.287/2 of Sivasailam Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, by considering the Civil Court Decree and remove the name of Muthaiah, the 4th Respondent herein from the Joint patta as he has no right or locus standi to retain his name in the joint patta.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Although on behalf of Respondent No.4, the Learned Counsel had filed Vakalat, today, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.4, either in person or through Learned Counsel. 3. According to the Petitioner, his prayer in the Writ Petition is only limited in nature viz., for passing of an order by th...
A. Malaiyadiyan Vs. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner-in-person, dated 18.3.2016, seeking for issuance of patta in the name of the Petitioner, as per the title deeds and revenue records.) 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 Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, he purchased the property situated in Ariyanenthal Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District in S.No.2/1, measuring an extent of 1.76.0 ares by means of registered sale deed, dated 15.7.2011. Originally, the owner of the property was Mr.Mallaiya Sharma, who is the father of one Mr.Mahalingam. The aforesaid Mahalingam sold the property to him in the year 2011. In this regard, the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 3.6.2016 to th...
M/s. Sella Synergy India Pvt Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his TN PAN:AACCS9750N/GIR SE 88 and quash the impugned notice dated 28.05.2007.) 1. Heard Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit registered under STPI for the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner is stated to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sella Holding Banca S.P.A., Italy engaged in the business of development and sale of computer software. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notice issued by the first respondent dated 28.05.2007, wherein the first respondent stated that he has reason to believe that the petitioner's income in respect of which they are assessable and chargeable to tax for the assessment ye...
S. Mary Shiny Vs. The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Campus, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 4 and 5 herein to appoint the Petitioner as P.G. Assistant Physics Teacher in the permanent vacancy now available in the 5th Respondents School w.e.f. 01.05.2016 based on the petitioners original seniority dated 23.07.2008 and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to approve the same and confer all monitory benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2016.) 1. S. Mary Shiny, claiming to be a Member of Thoothoor Parish, has come forward with this Writ Petition stating that the fifth respondent School is functioning under the Management of the fourth respondent School. The fifth respondent School is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. Even though the School is situated in Thoothoor Village, the enjoyment right of the said School such as appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff as well as admission of students is shared by tw...
R. Ramasamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Erode, in S.C.No.58 of 2015 on 01.10.2015.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C.No.58 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Erode, is the appellant herein. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 and 506 (ii) IPC. The trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also found him guilty of offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court, however, ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this...
The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home (Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.3168 of 2010, dated 25.11.2014.) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P(MD)No.3168 of 2010, dated 25.11.2014, by which, the Writ Court has set aside the communication, dated 18.09.2009 and consequently, directed the appellants to select the writ petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable in service. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent/writ petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. He came out successful in all the tests and obtained 54 marks, as against the cut off mark fixed for Backward Class. He was not selected to the post. Under the Right to Information Act, he came to know that he was not selected for the following two reasons:- (i) He suppressed his involvement in the criminal case in the application. (ii) He was acquitted on benefit of doubt and not honourably, as such the petitioner is considered to be disqualified a...
P. Rengasamy Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 25.5.2016 and to take legal action in this regard.) 1. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is having a house in S.No.224/19 and near his house, there is a 'Children Welfare Home'. As per the Village Accounts, it is also situated in S.No.224/19. The aforesaid S.No.224/19 till today is mentioned in the revenue records as 10(1) Adangal and Patta. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that on the basis of forged documents, Thavasi, Son of Sannasi, Arumugam, son of Alagar are illegally trying to obtain patta in their favour for the aforesaid house and Children Welfare Home. They also had voluntarily damaged...
P. Kumarasankar Vs. The Tahsildar, Nilakkottai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner-in-person, dated 18.3.2016, seeking for issuance of patta in the name of the Petitioner, as per the title deeds and revenue records.) 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 Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, he submitted a representation before the Respondent on 18.03.2016 seeking for issuance of patta in his name enclosing necessary documents. Till date, his representation has not yet been disposed of and the same is pending. Hence the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 18.03.2016 in the subject-matter in issue is pending with the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Nil...
E. Yovan Shabi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Che ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent District Educational Officer to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Grade B.T.Assistant Mather Teacher in the 5th respondent school, namely, Concordia High School, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, with effect from the date of petitioner's appointment on 15.06.2011 with all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance.) 1. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, these matters are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, all the parties fairly submitted that although the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions was already decided by the Apex Court, the main issue is still pending. By saying so, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents produced an...
Chinnaperumal Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Hogenakkal Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast track Court, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.94 of 2014 dated 19.02.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.94 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast track Court, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. By judgment dated 19.02.2016, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in b...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- Next ›