Chennai Court October 2015 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.
M. John @ John Britto and Others Vs. The state, rep by the Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 04.10.2012 made in S.C.No.18 of 2011, on the file of the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.18 of 2011, on the file of the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11 to 4302 IPC21 and 2307 IPC By Judgment dated 04.10.2012, the Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 4, as detailed below:- Accused No.Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount1 to 4302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for lifeRs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.1and2307 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Crimina...
K. Ashok Kumar Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the order Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E13/3/33902/2008, dated 13.1.2009, issued by the 1st respondent and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground basis.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 13.1.2009, and to consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The petitioner has stated that his father K.Adinarayanan, who was employed as a Masthiri, under the Corporation of Chennai, had died on 25.1.2001, while he was in service. After the death of his father, the petitioner had given an application to the respondent...
M/s. Sudarsanam Industries, Through its Proprietrix R. Latha, Virudhun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2015 for amendment of licence conditions issued to the petitioner under the EPCG Scheme bearing Licence No.3530001714 dated 11.05.2006 and Licence No.3530001029 dated 31.05.2005 with retrospective effect and also for grant of further time to fulfill the export obligation within the limit as fixed by this Court.) 1. M/s Sudarsanam Industries, who suffered an order in original dated 14.01.2015 imposing the penalty of Rs.11,29,577/- on the ground of violating the licence conditions as prescribed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, subsequently, faced with the consequential order of recovery order dated 13.04.2015 to recover the said amount under the Revenue Recovery Act, has filed this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider h...
M. Baluchamy Vs. Rajeswari and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment dated 22.09.2014 made in M.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti.) 1. The petitioners in M.C.No.9 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti, filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.PC. It was ordered at Rs.2,000/-, per month, to the wife and Rs.2,500/- per month, to each of the two children. Challenging the same, the husband has filed this Criminal Revision Case. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per the nomenclature assigned to them before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts: The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.09.1999. Out of the wedlock, the petitioners 2 and 3 were born. It is the case of the first petitioner that her conduct was suspected and there was cruelty only on account of that at the hands of the respondent. 4. The respondent is employed as driver in the...
K. Senthilkumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Thathiengarpet Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 15.11.2012 made in S.C.No.61 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.61 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 15.11.2012, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted him, as detailed below:- Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.404 IPCTo under rigorous imprisonment for three years.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging ...
N. Mohammed Ali Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-VII(2), Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. Both the appeals, filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: ” "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax in revising the assessment for the assessment year 2000-2001 under Section 263 of the Act to disallow the cash purchases in terms of Section 40A(3) of the Act? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 263 of the Act for revising the order of assessment relating to the assessment year 2000-2001? (3) Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the applicability of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act while justifying the disallowance at 20% of the total cash purchases made in the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002? (4) Whether the Tribunal is correct in overlooking the business compulsions ...
K.Poovalagan Vs. J. Aruna Devi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.R.C.114 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR) (FAC), Trichirappalli, Trichirappalli District and set aside the order dated 28.11.2012.) 1. The wife / respondent filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.53 of 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. The said petition was dismissed, on the ground that the wife left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and therefore, she is not eligible to get any maintenance. Thereafter, the wife filed Crl.R.C.114 of 2009 before the Principal District and Sessions, Tiruchirapalli, against the order dismissing the application for maintenance. The said revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. Challenging the order of remand, the husband filed a revision petition before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.164 of 2012, in which, this Court, ...
P. Ragunathan and Others Vs. The Assistant Director of Handloom Textil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 1.9.2012 issued by the second respondent herein, quash the same.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. He had also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed....
Peter Sukumar Prakash Vs. Anna Shobna Pramila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the proceedings in EP No.41 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai initiated by the respondent to execute the exparte decree dated 29.12.2012 made in OP.No.624 of 2012 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai.) 1. On representation from the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, the above Civil Revision Petition is listed today under the caption for being mentioned ?. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2015 made in MP.No.2 of 2015 in CRP (NPD) No.3815/2015, the demand draft for a sum of Rs.25,000/- was revalidated. However, the office of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai refused to accept the same on the ground that only the petitioner / husband can deposit the amount. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks a direction to the office of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai to acc...
M/s. Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt Limited Vs. The Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
(Prayer:- WP.No.3374 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the show cause notice dated 25.06.2014 issued in F.No.R-506/CHA by the 1st Respondent and to quash the same. The other Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. In all the above Writ Petitions, except WP.No.8946 of 2015, the Petitioners therein have challenged the show cause notice issued under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred as CBLR 2013 or Regulations). In WP.No.8946 of 2015, the Petitioner therein challenged the order of suspension of the licence to operate as a customs broker. 2. The brief facts of the respective cases are as follows: a. WP.No.15849/2015:- The Petitioner was granted a licence to operate as a customs broker after satisfying all the norms. Whileso, action has been initiated by the Mumbai Commissi...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »