Chennai Court October 2015 Judgments
A. Arun Raj Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Erode and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to call for the records in C.C.No.138 of 2013 and to transfer the entire records from the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, to Additional Sessions Court, Moovattupuzha.) 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 2. A detailed narration of the factual matrix of this case is necessary. (a) Arun Raj and Plavila Gheevarghese John (hereinafter called 'John') hail from Kerala and were studying in Gnanamani College of Engineering, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu. They were in the second year of their course during January, 2012, when the incident in question took place. (b) Their college closed for the 2012 Pongal holidays and so they, along with other friends, boarded the Chennai-Trivandrum Mail (Train No.12623) on 14.1.2012 at Salem to return home. Adversity struck them at Erode station around 1.30 a.m. when a gang comprising of V.L.Kiran, Abin Sabu, Justin, Akhi...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sethupathy Pandian and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(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 his Na.Ka.No. /SDO-OMK/2015 dated 25.10.2015, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to give permission to the petitioner to use amplifiers and mike set for celebration of National Leader Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar's 108th Birthday Anniversary (Guru Pooja) from 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm on 29.10.2015 and from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm on 30.10.2015 in Kallambal village, Panaiyur Post, Madurai District.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement, made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!K. Maharajan Vs. Sankarammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the learned Family Judge, Tirunelveli dated 12.02.2015 in M.C.No.54 of 2014.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the matter has been settled and the parties are living together and therefore, the Revision petition may be dismissed as not pressed. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as not pressed (on account of the settlement between the parties). Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Komalandi and Others Vs. Kadarkarai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.32 of 2007 in A.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankoil dated 25.9.2007.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.32 of 2007 in A.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil dated 25.9.2007. 2. The said I.A.No.32 of 2007 has been filed to stay the operation of the Decree till the disposal of the Appeal. However, by letter dated 20.10.2015 in D.No.2150/2015, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil has clearly stated that the Appeal Suit No.6 of 2007 has already been disposed of by the said Court by Judgment dated 23.7.2013. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioners has reported that the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous. 3. In such circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected M.P(MD) N...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni Vs. Balaji Advertisement, Rep. by its Proprietor Suresh an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed to dispose of RCOP.No.63 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Alandur within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. The revision petitioner is the landlord. She preferred RCOP No.63/2015 before the District Munsif Court, Alandur. The said RCOP proceedings is pending without any progress. Hence, the revision petitioner filed the present Revision Petition. 2. Considering the fact that the RCOP proceedings was initiated in the year 2015 only, this Court is of the view that without knowing the work load of the trial court, a direction could not be issued to dispose of RCOP No.63 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Alandur. 3. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kannadhasan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct therespondents not to harass the petitioner except under due process of law.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction to therespondents not to harass the petitioner except under due process of law. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on instruction submitted that there is no case and no F.I.R pending against the petitioner and hence, there is no harassment by the respondent police. 3. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the second respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but let the police investigate into the matter in accordance with law and the mandates as found set out in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. If really, the police want to interrogate, it is open for the police to issue summons to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner shal...
Tag this Judgment!M. Innachimuthu Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication of the third respondent dated 15.11.2012 and quash the same as it is arbitrary, illegal and against the order in G.O.Ms.No.456 dated 9.11.2007 and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as a tharai vadagaitharar of the temple and not to collect any penal rent, legal and administrative charges on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2012.) Common Order 1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had submitted that this Court had passed an order, dated 28.11.2012, made i...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Muthuraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment, dated 27.02.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.481 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram.) 1. The appellant / Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.481 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 17.01.2008, at about 15.00 hours, when the deceased Dhanasekar was riding his TVS Champ Moped bearing registration No.TN07 2177, on Tiruvannamalai-Villupuram Main Road, near Mangalapuram Kallarai, the fourth respondent's Tata AC Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TN25 J0072, coming on the same road and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was admitte...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. First Garment MFG Co.(India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33476231113/2008-08 dated 15.12.2008 pertaining to February 2008, quash the same as illegal and contrary to Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent to refund the taxes paid on exports to the tune of Rs.16,572/-.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and disposed of, by a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(MD).No.1395 of 2010 is taken into consideration:- 3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1395 of 2010 has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33476231113/2008-08 dated 15.12.2008 pertaining to February 2008, quash the same as illegal and contrary to Article 286(1)(b) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar Ahamed Vs. S. Leela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
(Prayer: Civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur in I.A.No.639 of 2015 in O.S.No.809 of 2007 dated 13.7.2015.) 1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.809 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur. The respondent herein is the plaintiff therein. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. 2. The respondent filed proof affidavit as P.W.1 in the said suit on 6.1.2015. While so, on 23.1.2015, she filed an application in I.A.No.113 of 2015 to receive the document dated 23.10.2010, which is an information received from the Secretary to Government, by condoning the delay. 3. According to the respondent, she found that the date of document was erroneously mentioned in I.A.No.113 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »