Chennai Court September 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.
J. Paul Victor Kirubakaran Vs. District Elementary Educational officer ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.12.2008 of the third respondent refusing approval of appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in the fourth respondent with all arrears of salary, monetary and attendant benefits.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the abovesaid statement, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Boothanayagiamman Temple, Thuvarankuri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently permit the petitioner to conduct the Mandagapadi festival as part of Arulmighu Boothanayagiamman Temple festival situate at Thuvarankurichi Marungapuri Taluk Trichy District scheduled to be conducted from 29.09.2016 to 06.10.2016 by following the customary practice and rights followed by the villagers from time immemorial.) This writ petition has been filed by the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Boothanayagiamman Temple, Thuvarankurichi, Marunkapuri Taluk, Trichy District challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.09.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner is the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Boothanayagiamman Temple, Thuvarangurichi, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District ...
Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case from the file of the second respondent herein in M.T.A.No.34 of 2002, dated 28.02.2003 for the TNGST 1984-85 and quash the same.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver as follows: 1.1. The petitioner company is carrying on the business of purchase of cotton and manufacture of cotton yarn and is holding the entire 100% share of it's company, namely, Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd., and it is also registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'TNGST Act'). The petitioner company reported in it's monthly return in Form-I for the assessment year 1984-85 before the first respondent, a turnover of Rs.3,37,94,293.00 and a taxable turnover of Rs.1,79,24,592.00 and paid the taxes along with the return for that assessment year. 1.2. The petitioner company filed ...
Tvl.Qmax Spinners India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in TIN/33661883032/2011-12, TIN/33661883032/2012-13, TIN/33661883032/2013-14 and TIN/33661883032/2014-15, quash the re-assessment orders dated 17.8.2016 passed therein and further direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after examining the detailed objections and the evidence and records produced, besides granting personal hearing.) Common Order: 1. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 carrying business in the manufacture of cotton cone yarn and cotton hank yarn for the past nine years in the place of business of the petitioner at Arasur (PO), Coimb...
Tamilarasi Vs. Prasad
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct learned III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2015 on its file, as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the learned III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2015 on its file, as expeditiously as possible, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials on record. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2015 before the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between them which took place on 27.08.2014.The respondent herein did not file any counter affidavit and drag on the said proceedings and the matter has been adjourned from time...
A.N. Alagendra Nithi Vs. The Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings Ref.No. MAO/imb 13-14/Madurai (Vilangudi) dated 13.07.2016 quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to accept the application submitted by the Petitioner and allow him to participate in the selection process for LPG Distributorship Madurai (Vilangudi) area by lot system.) Challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 13.07.2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Madurai (Vilangudi) on the ground the petitioner does not have minimum liquid funds of Rs.5 lakhs for urban category, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents called for applications for appointing 296 LPG Distributorship through out the State of Tamil Nadu by way of paper publi...
Chinnaiah Vs. Sakthivel and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the second respondent and quash the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission - Tamil Nadu, in S.H.R.C.No.5138 of 2005, dated 25.04.2008.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 25.04.2008, in S.H.R.C.No.5138 of 2005, and quash the same. 2. The facts of the case: According to the first respondent, the petitioner viz., Chinnaiah and one Kaliyamoorthy and Periyasamy while working as Inspector of Police and Head Constables respectively in Kulithalai Police Station, on 27.12.2004 took the first respondent to Kulithalai Police Station. From there, again, he was taken to Thogamalai Police Station. In the said Police Station, the first respondent was kept and confined in a separate Cell. He was tortured therein by beating all over hi...
Gomathi and Another Vs. Malathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2014 made in A.S.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012 made in O.S.No.114 of 2009 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.) 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for partition; for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the 5th defendant and for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The plaintiffs are the daughters and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendants 1 and 2. Both the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 were enjoying undivided joint family properties. The suit property is one of the joint family property and therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to equal shares. However, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have sold the suit property to 5th defendant on 08....
Azhi @ Muthuraj Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Madurai Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 18.12.2012, made in S.C.No.64 of 2012, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.64 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 18.12.2012, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Manikandan @ Muthumanikandan. PW1 is the father and PW2 is the mother of the deceased. They were residing at Kamatchi Akragaram, Simmakkal, Madurai Town. The accused also hails f...
C. Babu Rajan Vs. The Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to serve as the Controller in the control section at the office of the respondent No.4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to serve as the Controller in the control section at the office of the respondent No.4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a person with 50% disability, having disability certificate to that effect; that he was selected and posted as Conductor in the Nesamony Transport Corporation under disability category on 01.11.1998 and was subsequently transferred to the State Express Transport Corporation, Kanyakumari Division from 1997 onwards; that from 27.07.2016 onwards, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »