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.
M. Leema Rose Vs. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 03.08.2016 to transfer her from Primary Health Centre Kuttakuli, Kanyakumari District to Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanyakumari District.) 1. This is a Writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 03.08.2016 to transfer her from Primary Health Centre Kuttakuli, Kanyakumari District to Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanyakumari District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that from 2013 onwards, even though she is functioning without any blemishes on record, her request for transfer has not been considered so far. As her application dated 03.08.2016 has not been considered, this w...
Krishnan Vs. The Deputy General Manager, National Insurance Company, C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to disburse the petitioner gratuity, 6-months earn leave Salary, Monthly Pension and also retirement benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to disburse the petitioner gratuity, 6-months earn leave Salary, Monthly Pension and also retirement benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Cashier in the respondent company at Sivakasi Branch and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the alleged misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.11,250/-; that he was given compulsory retirement on 08.12.2009 and from that date onwards, the res...
Vasundhara and Another Vs. M. Dhanalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant for the following: a) to direct the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Schedule B property to the plaintiff; b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or her men or servants or agents or any one acting on her behalf from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule A property; c) to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit Schedule B property; d) to direct the defendant to pay the future damages for wrongful use and occupation of Schedule B property at Rs.25,000/- p.m., from this date till the date of handing over of possession of same to plaintiff; and e) for costs of the suit. Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 CPC read with Section 26 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against...
A. Sundeep, Chennai Vs. The Pondicherry University, Rep. by its Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent issued in PU/CE/E5/MBBS/2016/650, dated 29.06.2016, and quash the same in so far as the petitioner concerned and to direct the third respondent to send the petitioner's paper for revaluation to the second respondent.) Common Order: 1. In all these Writ Petitions, the relief sought for is identical and therefore, all the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek for quashing the order dated 29.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, who is the Controller of Examination (i/c) of the Pondicherry University, and to direct the third respondent to send the petitioners' paper for revaluation to the second respondent. 3. By the impugned proceedings, the second respondent informed all the Director, Dean, Princ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned for the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A12 and the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants /A1 to A12, they are abiding the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.5995 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.398 of 2016 dated 07.06.2016 without any default till today. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A12 that the Petitioners are coolies and they find it difficult to appear before the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Villupuram District. 3. Considering the difficulties expressed on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A12 and also this Court taking note of the fact that the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A12 adhering to the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.5995 of 2016 in Crl...
A. Anuratha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in D.O.No.246/2016 in C.No.A4/14936/2015 dated 19.03.2016 and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2016 passed in D.O.No.246/2016 in C.No.A4/14936/2015 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of pendency of the criminal case in Crime No.225 of 2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 420 IPC, which was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai in C.C.No.26 of 2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint against the petitioner came to be lodged by one Jeyalakshmi, who is none other than the ...
D. Wilsonraj Vs. The Director of School Education, and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in A.Thi.Mu.No.1861/A1/2016 dated 31.08.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman from the date of appointment, i.e., 12.09.2005 with all the consequential benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.08.2016 passed in A.Thi.Mu.No.1861/A1/2016, vide which, the 2nd respondent has returned the proposal stating that the Government constituted a High Level Committee and on receipt of suitable recommendation from the said Committee, grant of approval would be considered. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to approve his appointment as Waterman from the date of appointment, i.e., 12.09.2005 with all the consequential ben...
R. Paramasivan Vs. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed in W.P. No. 32885 of 2016.) 1. The original writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent therein to take immediate and necessary steps to entrust the case, relating to the death of one Ramkumar in judicial custody to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation. 2. The appellant herein, who is the father of deceased Ramkumar, was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. The deceased Ramkumar, who was in judicial custody, with regard to the murder of one Swathi on 24.06.2016 at Nungambakkam Railway Station, is said to have died on 18.09.2016. The Police stated that while in custody, the said Ramkumar, had bitten a live wire in the prison and committed suicide. 3. The version putforth by the Police is contested by the appellant stating that the said Ramkumar was done to death, while in prison, by the Police Officials. Lacking trust in the State machinery, the appellant her...
P. Subramanian Veersus The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 01.08.2016. 1. The benefits bestowed by law upon an employee in recognition of his committed continuous loyal and devoted duty by payment of the pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. are in the nature of property. 2. This right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law, as right to property has been recognised under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be paid in time, is reflected, in the case of Dr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, and the observation needs as under:- ....grant of pension is not a bounty but a right ...
K. Sakthivel Vs. The Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent issued in his letter No.R.C.No.51153/ICE1/2007-12 dated 14-05-2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to include the petitioner name in the approved list of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce of the year 2007-2008 with all service and monetary benefits on par with petitioner's junior within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has circulated a letter dated 19.09.2016 to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this writ petition. 2. Recording the same, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »