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.
The Land Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai and Others Vs. VGP Housing Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: W.A. No.1519 of 2015 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10532 of 2008. W.A. Nos.1289 and 1495 of 2015 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.P. No.1 of 2015 in W.P. No. 10532 of 2008.) Common Judgment: (Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.) These writ appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby learned single Judge has directed the authorities to consider the case of exemption sought for by the agreement holders in respect of the acquisition of excess lands under the Land Reforms Act. 2. While W.A. No.1519 of 2015 has been filed by the State assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge, whereby, the learned single Judge had quashed the impugned order and directed the Government to consider exemption of the lands taken over from the petitioner/agreement holder, W.A. Nos.1289 and 1495 of 20...
The Principal Sethu Institute of Technology, Pullor, Kariapatti, Virud ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(MD).No.11678 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 made in W.P(MD)No.14360 of 2015.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. 2. The Writ Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
P. Chidambaram Vs. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,(Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Gratuity Earned Leave salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent 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...
P. Harikrishnan @ Harirajan Vs. M. Sethu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, in O.S.No.20 of 2012.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree, dated 29.1.2016, passed in O.S.No.20 of 2012, by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. 2. The appellant herein, as plaintiff, has instituted Original Suit No.20 of 2012, on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a decree of Specific Performance in pursuance of sale agreement, dated 13.6.2001, entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. 3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is the absolute property of the defendants and both the plaintiff and defendants have entered into a sale agreement dated 13.6.2001, wherein, total sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.29 lakhs. On the date of its execution, the defendants had receiv...
A. Ayyavu (Died) Vs. The Statge of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Revenue Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.920 of 2012 as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2015, dismissing the writ petition for issuing a writ of declaration declaring the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed and consequently to declare the orders of the first respondent dated 10.11.2008 and 24.03.2011 as null and void. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. One Andiappan who died in the year 1961 is the owner in respect of certain lands in Survey No.276/2 and the same lands were acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of formation of industrial estates by the State Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) dated 19.11.1963 and a declaration under Section 6 dated 18.12.1963. Since the acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no enquiry was conducted under Section 5A o...
M/s. SRF Ltd. Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order No.558/05 dated 06.04.2005 passed by the 1st respondent and consequentially allow the appeal.) D . Krishnakumar, J 1. M/s. SRF Limited, represented by its Associate Vice President has filed this Appeal against the final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 06.04.2005 in No.558/2005. 2. The facts of the case as narrated in the appeal, are as follows :- The appellant SRF Limited is engaged in the manufacture of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, the appellant, manufacturing and clearing Nylon Filament Yarn, with low tenacity, claimed exemption, under Central Excise Notification No.08/1996 dated 23.07.1996. The assessments were done provisionally, since the testing process had to be carried on. The Exemption Notification No. 08/96 dated 23.07.1996, allowed exemption to Nylon Filament...
R. Muthusamy Vs. the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.5,16,508/- towards Gratuity and Rs.1,33,798/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 30.11.13 payable pursuant new wage settlement together with 18% interest per annum and further directing the respondents to pay him Rs.2,37,469/- towards the pension Commutation amount and arrears of pension for the period from 01.12.13 by revising his pension together with 18% interest per annum, after calculating all terminal/pension benefits based on the monthly wages payable to the petitioner on the month of retirement i.e., November, 2014 by revising the same as per the settlement dated 13.04.15 as ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order, dated 29.01.2016 in W.A.(MD) No.1457/15 and etc. batch.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation...
S. Vadivel and Others Vs. The State by The Inspector of Police, Veeram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem to accept the surrender of the petitioners herein and consider the bail petition concerned in Crime No.193 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem district on the same day itself.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem to accept the surrender of the petitioners herein and consider the bail petition concerned in Crime No.193 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem district on the same day itself. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 I.P.C. r/w 3[2][v] and 3(2) (va) of SC and ST [Prevention of Atrocities]...
M. Abdul Rahman Shet and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay provident fund, Gratuity and Leave Salary with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner within a stipulated period.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent 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 Additional Advocate Genera...
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chrompet Police Station, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. challenging order of acquittal passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.338 of 2008 dated 31.08.2009.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents 1 to 3 in S.C.No.338 of 2008 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpatu dated 31.08.2009. The respondents stood charged for offences 302 r/w 34 and 392 r/w 397 r/w 34 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 31.08.2009, acquitted all the three accused. That is how, the State is before this court with this criminal appeal challenging the order of acquittal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Mothilal Jain. He was running a Jewellery Shop at No.1, 10th Street, New Colony, Chromepet, Chennai in Chengalpattu District. He was a pawn broker doing pawn business at the very ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »