Chennai Court September 2016 Judgments
Anandhi Petitioner Vs. The Chief General Manager BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari fied mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed in O.A.No.1203 of 2012 dated 11-09-2015 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant First Time Bound IDA Pay Scale Upgradation with effect from 01-10-2004 to the petitioner and Second Time Bound IDA Pay Scale Upgradation with effect from 01- 10-2009 to the petitioner and for restoration of seniority and other promotional benefits to the petitioner and pass further orders.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.1203 of 2012 dated 11-09-2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. 2. The writ petitioner as applicant has filed O.A.No.1203 of 2012 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!Mathiya Manila Arasu SC (Arunthathiyar) Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Manon ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned advertisement on the file of the Respondent No.2, dated 22.07.2016 published in the official website of the 2nd respondent University and quash the same as illegal in so far earmarking a new category of Schedule Caste (Priority) SC (P) in the place of Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) SC(A) and for a direction forbearing the respondents from filling up the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate professors, Professors reserved for SC (A) Category with the persons not belonging to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) category and for a direction, directing the respondents to follow the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including private Educational Institutions and of appointments of posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!Dominic Xavier James Vs. Kavin Marry
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014, on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli Within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014, on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli Within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 3. It is seen from the affidavit that the marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.06.2005 according to Christian rites and customs. Due to difference of opinion, the respondent herein filed I.D.O.P.No.265 of 2012 before the District Court, Thoothukudi on 02.07.2012. The respondent entered appearance on 07.09.2012 and filed her counter on 22.02.2013. In-spite of counter being filed, the Court below has adjourned the matter from time-...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinam @ Rethinam Vs. State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and sentence, dated 30.08.2013 imposed in S.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur. Criminal Appeal filed under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment dated 30.08.20134 imposed in S.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur and return the M.O.4, Tata Sumo to the appellant.) Common Judgment: P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. Crl.A.No.608 of 2003 is directed against the Judgment of the District and Sessions Judge of Tiruvarur, dated 30.08.2013 in S.C.No.14 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence including Section 302 IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the Judgment therein, including life imprisonment. 2. Another appeal has been preferred by A1 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2014 against the order of confiscation of the Tata S...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrasekar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree, dated 8.4.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Quantum of Rs.43,65,600/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till realisation, awarded to the first respondent/injured in MCOP No.102/2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur, is challenged on the grounds inter alia that the Tribunal has awarded an excess compensation under various heads. 2. Record of proceedings shows that, while entertaining the challenge, this court, vide order dated 3.3.2016, granted interim stay of the said judgment and decree on condition that the appellant herein, should deposit the entire award amount, with proportionate interest and cost to the credit of MCOP No.102/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur. 3....
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Hi-design, Rep., by its Chief Finance Officer Vsersus The Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records comprised in C.No.V/15/204-219 and 230/2007-ST, Final Order No.20/2008, dated 28.02.2008, issued by the second respondent, quash the same in so far as that portion of the impugned order confirming the duty demands imposition of penalties and redemption fine and remand the matter to the said second respondent for disposal of the matter afresh in so far as that portion of the impugned order confirming the duty demands imposition of penalties and redemption fine in accordance with law. Prayer in W.P.No.7109 of 2008 :-This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records comprised in the impugned show cause notice No.14 of 2007, dated 26.04.2007, on the file of the first respondent, quash the same. Common Order 1. Heard Mr.S.Muthu Venkataraman, learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi Gas Service Vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN : 33381620122/2013-14 and TIN : 33381620122/ 2014-15 and quash the orders respectively dated 25.5.2015 and 6.7.2015 made therein.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, which is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent, was originally a proprietorship concern with one Mr.K.Punniakoti Mudaliar as its sole proprietor. He is the father of one Mr.K.Srikanth the present proprietor of the petitioner herein. The proprietorship concern is a LPG distributor of M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, which has also been registered on the file of the respondent Department under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pathmanaman Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in G.O.(Ms)No.206, Law (Administration) Department, dated 26.06.2015 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner is a practising Advocate Aranthangi. On 03.04.1987, the petitioner was appointed as Notary by the Government of Tamil Nadu and his Certificate of Notary has been periodically renewed and it is valid up to 26.01.2017. On 16.12.2011, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation with regard to certain misconduct. The above notice said to have been issued based on a complaint received from the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, dated 22.11.2011 alleging that the petitioner has put his official signature and Notary seal in an affidavit sworn to by one Mrs.Mumtaj Begum and Mr.Abubakar dated 12.10.2011 in which one of the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajasekaran and Others Vs. State Rep. by Special Sub-Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer in all Crl.R.Cs.: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed in C.M.P.Nos.3314, 3318, 3315, 3316 and 3317 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.409 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, dismissing the petition filed for the discharge of the petitioners.) Common Order 1. These Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, in C.M.P.Nos.3314, 3318, 3315, 3316 and 3317 of 2015 respectively in C.C.No.409 of 2014, dismissing the petitions filed for the discharge of the petitioners. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would mainly contend that the learned Magistrate, without perusing the documents produced on the side of the petitioners and the relevant records, erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the present petitioners for discharge. It is further contended that...
Tag this Judgment!Pandi @ Thangapandi and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.210 of 2015 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.148 of 2015 is the third accused in S.C.No.59 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Karur. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Kumar @ Vijayakumar. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges against all the three accused. The first charge was under Section 302 read with 34 (2 counts) IPC and the second charge was under Section 380 read with 34 IPC. By Judgment, dated 12.06.2015, the Trial Court convicted all the three accused under both the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count (totally two counts), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 (2 counts) I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo si...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »