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.
Dr. S. Revwathy Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent's proceedings in G.O(D)No.446, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016 read with consequential G.O(D)No.447, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 18.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Director of Medical Education forthwith.) (Prayer amended vide order dated 27.07.2016 in WMP(MD)No.9207/16) 1. The 1st respondent/Government have issued G.O(D)No.446, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, approving a regular panel consisting the name of the 3rd respondent/Dr.R.Vimala, Dean, Madras Medical College, Chennai, for the post of Director of Medical Education, by relaxing Rule 8(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services as proposed by the Director of Medical ...
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Highways, Fort S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
Common Judgment: C.T. Selvam, J. 1. These writ appeals challenge the order of learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD) No.7918 of 2011 on 12.02.2014. While in W.A(MD) No.28 of 2016, the Tamil Nadu Highways Department (hereinafter referred to as respondents) challenges order of learned Single Judge directing restoration of possession of property after removing a fence thereon, the challenge in W.A.(MD) No.401 of 2016 is against learned Single Judge not having directed payment of compensation to the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). 2. It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner of property measuring 0.03.20 hectares in Survey No.202/5, Old Survey No.202/1 (Part), Natham Patta No.1170, Thiruparankundram Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. After demolishing the old building thereon, he had constructed anew as per plan approved by the Executive Officer, Tiruparankundram Panchayat on 20.04.2005. Since Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by District ...
F. Syed Ameenudeen Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Bo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the peace committee report dated 06.06.16 and quash the same as illegal as far as the 4th resolution is concerned i.e. removal of the name board of the trustees in the premises of the Dargah.) M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the Writ Petition to the effect that 'the Writ Petition is withdrawn as not pressed'. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
K. Joshwa Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Roa ...
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 Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned Check Slip No.1/2016, dated 22.07.2016, issued by the Second Respondent to the Petitioner and quash the same as illegal.) 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 Respondents. 4. It appears that the Second Respondent / Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi Sub-Rgistrar Office, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, had issued Check Slip No.1/2016, dated 22.07.2016, by refusing to register the Sale Deed, on the ground that in M.P.Nos.3, 2, 2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.9031, 9032, 9033, 9034, and 9035 of 2009, an order of interim stay was granted to register the document and as such, the Petitioner was informed that the Documents in Survey Nos.1347/1A, 1347/1B, 1347/1C, 1347/1D, 1347/2B, 1347/3B, 1347/3D, 1347/3A2, 1347/3C, in respect of An...
A. Pon Mariappan Vs. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, ...
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 15.04.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court) 1. Mrs.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.A.Pon Mariappan, 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/...
M/s. Apten Forgings Private Ltd., and Another Vs. Genshipping Pacific ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant holding the defendant liable and directing them to pay the second plaintiff's (i) a sum of Rs.37,46,425/- with subsequent interest at 18% per annum from this date till payment in full, being a commercial cause. (ii) costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.37,46,425/- with interest. 2. The first plaintiff is a Private Limited Company dealing with manufacturing of Steel Forgings for the automobile industry having their factory in Bangalore. The second plaintiff is the General Insurer, a Public Limited Company, having its office in Chennai. The defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated in Singapore, carrying on business in Chennai, through the Local Steamer M/s.A.S.Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. 3. The first plaintiff purchased from M/s.Chin Fong ...
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai Vs. M/s. Bhairav Trading Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order, dated 20.04.2015 made in W.P.No.11404 of 2015 etc.) Common Judgment: S. Manikumar, J. 1. Common issue in all the writ appeals filed by the Revenue is to the correctness of the orders passed by the writ court in setting aside the assessment orders passed by the competent authorities. As facts and law involved in all the writ appeals except W.A.No.753/2016, are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, and W.A.No.753/2016, is separately dealt with. 2. In view of the above, suffice to incorporate the averments and grounds of challenge from one appeal. Respondents in all the appeals, except W.A.No.753/2016, are the buying dealers, who have purchased goods from the selling dealers, whose Registration Certificates, have been cancelled by the Commercial Tax Department with retrospective effect. Consequently, input tax credits availed by the buying dealers for the purchases made, durin...
Textile connection Vs. Burlington's Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants jointly and severally for Rs.39,67,144/- with interest on Rs.26,21,139.00 at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date hereof till the date of realization in full and for the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.39,67,144/- with interest on Rs.26,21,139.00 at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization in full. 2. The plaintiff is a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, carrying on business in Chennai. The first defendant is also a Partnership Firm dealing in export of textile garments. The defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the first defendant Firm. The plaintiff is a regular supplier of cotton fabrics to the first defendant based on the orders. The first defendant would convert these fabrics into garments and export such garments. Th...
S. Mahalingam Chettiyar Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakula ...
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 1st Respondent to enquire and pass final order in Na.Ka.No.3376/2015/A-1, within stipulated time.) 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. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is pending for enquiry before the First Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District, till date, without any significant progress or disposal. It appears that the parties to the Appeal had filed their response / counter. The next date of hearing is scheduled to take place, before the First Respondent, on 14.09.2016. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's Appeal is pending from 2015 onwards, before the First Respondent and also this Court taking note of the fact that the next date ...
S. Rajendran Vs. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai and O ...
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 permit the Petitioner to continue in his service as Clerk in the fourth respondent Society till he attaining the age of 60 years as per rule 56(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules r/w Rule 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988.) 1. Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Mr.S.Rajendran, the Petitioner herein, was appointed as Salesman by R4/the President of NN191, Maravamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Maravamangalam,Sivagangai District on 22.05.1979 and subsequently, he was promoted as Attendar in the year 1992. 3. Since the Petitioner rendered a satisfactory service, he was promoted to the post of Clerk. While serving so, on r...