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. Thiruvenkataprabhu Vs. M. Latha
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 19(1) Family Court Act against the fair order and decreetal orders dated 29.01.2016 made in H.M.O.P.Nos.18 and 19 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Madurai.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of divorce and also the order for restitution of conjugal rights, dated 29.01.2016, passed by the Family Court, Madurai, the appellant, who is the husband of the respondent herein, has filed the appeals. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondent on 01.08.2016. During the pendency of the appeals, the matters were referred to the Tamil Nadu Conciliation Centre, Madurai, to find out the possibility of an amicable settlement/solution between the parties and accordingly, the matter was settled amicably between them on 01.09.2016. The relevant portion found in the Mediation Report, dated 01.09.2016, is usefully extracted below:- The appellant and the respondent have settled the matter ami...
P. Vijil Raj Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Ma3A7/6816/16 and Ma3A7/6817/16 dated 20.08.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to provide sufficient time to the petitioner to submit the application for the purpose of obtaining building plan approval.) Common Order M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. The petitioner in his affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions would state among other things, that he has purchased the land admeasuring to 26 cents in Re.Survey No.17/13B1 in Chinthamani Village, Madurai vide Document No.10620/2011 registered on the file of the District Registrar,Madurai, (South) and also purchased another extent o...
Hari Eswaran Vs. Sarasu @ Saraswathy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C. No.310 of 2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur and quash the complaint filed by the first respondent. ) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.310 of 2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur and quash the complaint filed by the first respondent. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name. 3. It is the case of Sarasu (the complainant/first respondent herein) that she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property at No.5-A, II Cross Street, Jothi Nagar, Ernavoor Village, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 19 (for brevity the property in dispute ). While so, it is alleged by her that Hari Eswaran (the petitioner herein) attempted to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute, pursuant to which, she filed O.S. No.229 of 2...
R. Sarabai Vs. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(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 transfer bearing Na.Ka.No.16141/gneh3 ,U5/ 07 dated 26.11.2007 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to retain the petitioner as Village Health Nurse at Thadikkarankonam Primary Health Centre, Kanyakumari District.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
State by Forest Range Officer, Tiruvallur District Vs. P. Subash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in CMP.No.322 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu in STOR.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Forest Range Officer, Pallipattu.) 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu made in CMP.No.322 of 2016 dated 09.03.2016 in STOR.No.1 of 2016 on the file of Forest Range Officer, Pallipattu, for returning the property to the respondent herein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that according to the prosecution case, on 07.02.2016 at about 17.00hrs Circle Inspector, R.K.Pettai, Tiruvallur along with police party while doing regular vehicle check up intercepted the vehicle/car bearing Registration No.TN25 AK 7644, the car stopped before the check post and the driver and the other person try to abandon the vehicle and run away,...
Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
In W.P.No.2071 of 2016, we have already noticed that the notification of Section 22-A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008, has been adjourned since March, 2016 and further time has been sought by the State Government. 2. We are concerned in the present matter with the absence of any Provisions of Acts/Rules/Regulations at present prescribing any wetland lying fallow for more than three years to be converted into residential or other use applied for. This was noticed in our order dated 24.03.2016, while simultaneously noticing that only 5% of the land area was under statutory planning process and for the remaining 95% plans are yet to be developed. 3. In a recent publications, it has come to light that the wetland area in Chennai itself has been reduced from about 80% to 15% as per a newspaper report published couple of days ago. It is stated to be one of the causes for the floods, if not the main cause and we have noticed so in our order dated 06.09.2016 in W.P.No.3095...
S. Pandi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports (HL ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(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 proceedings in impugned letter No.7164/HL1/2009-1 dated 18.08.09 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further direct to permit the petitioner to retire from the petitioner's service.) 1. The petitioner has come to this Court to challenge the impugned order in No.7164/HL1/2009-1 dated 18.08.09 on the file of the first respondent and for further direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from his service. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. It is seen from the counter affidavit that after issuance of charge memo, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was going on. Further it is seen from the counter affidavit that the enquiry ...
The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeals under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 16.12.2005 in WTA Nos.45 to 47/MDS/2005.) Common Judgment Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. These Tax Case Appeals are preferred by the Assessee under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, by its order dated 16.12.2005, for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The following substantial questions of law have been raised:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the reopening of assessment was not in accordance with law? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not allowing the claim of deduction of proportionate liability from the gross wealth of the appellant? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the compu...
A. Kalaisselvane Vs. The Government of Pondicherry Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme on the basis of the Academic Performance Indicator marks scored by the petitioners with effect from the date of promotion of other selected candidates for the year 2015 to 2016 with all monetary and service benefits.) 1. With the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to select the petitioners for promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme on the basis of the Academic Performance Indicator marks scored by the petitioners with effect from the date of promotion of other selected candidates for the year 2015 to 2016 with all monetary and service benefits. 3. It is the case ...
M.S. Engineers, Coimbatore Vs. Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent herein from proceeding further against the petitioner without furnishing the copies of the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and Measurement Books and affording an opportunity to enable the petitioner to examine the officials through its Advocates as requested in its petition dated 05.06.2016.) 1. Heard Mr.K.Doraisami, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Yashod Vardha, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.R.Sivakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 2. The present proceeding is sequel to an earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36924 of 2015. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 19.08.2015 in and by which the petitioner was blacklisted from the list of approve...