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.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai Vs. M/s. Mansi Fin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai, made in I.T.A.No.1560/Mds/2015, dated 20.11.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Tax Case Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1560/Mds/2015, for the assessment year 2011-2012, in the matter of M/s.Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., Chennai, by which, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent, non-banking finance company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 26.09.2011, admitting total income of Rs.25,91,180/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice, under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was issued on 01.08.2012 and duly served on the assessee on 08.08.2012. Assessee's authorised representative appeared in person and produced a copy of the Memorandum of Arti...
M. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. B.P. Prasad and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 made in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2008 made in O.S.No.2480 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur.) 1. The appellants are the defendants 2 to 5 in a suit for a recovery of possession and for permanent injunction filed by the first respondent herein. The trial court dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram. The Appellate Court originally heard the appeal and allowed the same on 19.04.2013. 3. It is seen that when the Appellate Court heard and decided the matter on the said day, the respondents before the Appellate Court, who are the appellants herein, were not duly represented. Therefore, these appellants as the respondents before the First Appellate Court filed I.A.No.240 of 2014, seeking for setting aside the judgment and decree passed...
M/s. Balaji Construction Vs. The Executive Engineer, Sarugini River Ba ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent herein to issue tender inviting notices to the Petitioner for the works to be carried out on contract within the jurisdiction of the Respondent herein before issuing the tender schedule. 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the First Respondent. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is a Class-I registered contractor with the Public Works Department, Tamil Nadu. It appears that the Petitioner had addressed a Letter / Communication, dated 09.06.2016, to the Respondent / Executive Engineer, Sarugini River Basin Division, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organisation, Sivagangai, whereby and where-under it was mentioned that the Petitioner's Licence was extended during the year 2016-2017. Also in the Reference portion of the Communica...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The petitioners are stated to be engaged in street vending. Their area of occupation is Valayalkara Street in Thirumangalam Municipality. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Commissioner, Thirumangalam Municipality with a view to provide access to an influential businessmen made an attempt to evict them and put an end to their street vending. The petitioners therefore filed this writ petition. 3. The Commissioner, Thirumangalam Municipality in his counter affidavit disputed the version given by the petitioners. According to him, the petitioners have located their shops in such a way that nobody in a position to enter Valayalkara Street. 4. There is a dispute with regard to the location of the business carried on by the petitioners as street vendors. The Commissioner produced a sketch and few photographs. The petitioners have also produced photographs to demonstrate that they have not been doing business in an objectionable manner. 5. The street vendors ...
P. Jayarama Pillai Vs. K. Balakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer in S.A.885/2009:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantkam made in A.S.No.24 of 2006 dated 23.01.2009 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Madurantkam made in O.S.No.113 of 1993 dated 31.08.2005. Prayer in S.A.886/2009:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantkam made in A.S.No.68 of 2006 dated 23.01.2009 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Madurantkam made in O.S.No.92 of 1999 dated 31.08.2005.) Common Judgment: S.A.No.885 of 2009 is filed by the second defendant in a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 2. S.A.No.886 of 2009 is filed b...
Jesinthamary Vs. Selvaraj and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2849 of 2015, order dated 18.07.2017, on the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, and set aside the order.) 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her bail cancellation petition in Crl.M.P.No.2849 of 2015, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, the de facto complainant in Crime No.125 of 2015, on the file of R.S.Mangalam Police Station, has directed this revision. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 and certain others are accused in Crime No.125 of 2015, registered by R.S.Mangalam Police, under Sections 294(b), 323, 147, 506(I) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Woman Harassment Act. The respondents 1 and 2 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Cr.M.P.No.2709 of 2015, on 28.10.2015, with a condition to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, daily at 10 a.m., for ten days. 3. On 04.11.2015, the respon...
M. Vijaya, Secondary Grade Teacher, Hindu Nadar Middle School, Thoothu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2007 dated 29.03.2012 and allow the appeal with consequential and service benefits to the appellant with effect from 01.06.2005. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Third Respondent appointing the Fourth Respondent as Headmistress vide appointment order dated 14.03.2007 and consequential order of the second respondent granting temporary approval in O.Mu.No. 3340/A3/07, dated 31.05.2007, quash the same and direct the third respondent to promote the petitioner as Headmistress on the basis of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974.) Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This in-house appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner who sought for quashing the order passed on 03.01.2007 by the Secretary of the Hindu Nadar Middle School, P...
Sri.Venkateswara Vidhya Mandhir Higher Secondary School, represented b ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register the Petitioner's vehicle Mahindra Maximo Mini Van VX(8 seats) BS-III bearing Engine No. MCF6E21026 Chasis No. MA1FC2MCRF6E34255 to accept the Motor Vehicles Tax, and to issue Fitness Certificate and consequently to issue the Educational Institution Permit in respect of the Petitioner school with reference to the proceeding of the first respondent vide E2/201010/2016, dated 11.5.2016.) 1. Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.Sri.Venkateswara Vidhya Mandhir Higher Secondary School, represented by its Correspondent has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register the Petitioner's vehicle Mahindra Maximo Mini Van VX(8 seats) BS-III bearing Engine No...
T. Devasundar Moses Vs. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Sala ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner for the post of Bugler Constable as requested in the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.4.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent and by consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. Mr.T.Deva Sundar Moses, the Petitioner herein has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the the respondent to consider the Petitioner for the post of Bugler Constable as requested in his representation, dated 15.04.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 3. The said prayer is totally mis-conceived. The reason is that the Petitioner, on an earlier occasion, sent a representation for the same prayer and it was rejected by the respondent, by order, dated 15.04.2014, in Na.Ka.No.A1/1325/2...
The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs. A. Jude Thaddeues
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Periyakulam in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 1992, dated the 27th day of February, 1995.) A.S.Nos.587, 589 and 590 of 1996: 1. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam has filed all these appeals, against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.9 of 1992, 16 of 1992 and 2 of 1993 respectively. 2. The Lands in Survey Nos.1146/1, 1147/1 and 1147/1C in Kamayakavundanpatti Village of an extent of 0.15.5, 0.10.5 and 0.06.5 hectare respectively and in 316/6A, 316/6B, 316/7, 316/7B and 316/6 in Royappanpatti Village to an extent of 0.09.5, 0.12.0, 0.32.0, 0.12.0 and 0.09.5 hectare respectively were acquired for the purpose of water spread area and for construction of staff quarters under Shanmuganadhi Reservoir Scheme, Uthamapalayam under 4(1) notification dated 02.11.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering various documents fixe...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »