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.
V.K. Venkatesan Vs. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decreetal and common orders dated 18.08.2015 passed in I.A.No.680 of 2015 in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi.) Common Order 1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. It is a suit for declaration and other reliefs. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.384 of 2015 for interim injunction and the same was also granted. 3. The case of the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2015 is that the husband of the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2015 executed an agreement of sale of the property concerned in the suit. It is also stated that the revision petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance based on the said agreement. After executing an agreement, the husband of the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2015 settled the property i...
Xaviour Muthuraj @ Muthukutty Vs. Mary Asha @ Ajitha Asha
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, in M.C.No.26 of 2004 dated 18.11.2010.) "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) 1. This is the popular Shakespearean quote expressing the meaning that name is a meaningless and artificial convention. But this is a case where the name has been a tool in the hands of the revision petitioner to drag this case up to High Court. 2. Mary Asha @ Ajitha Asha, the daughter of the revision petitioner was a minor at the time of filing of the petition and hence represented by the grandmother, though the mother was alive and available. Now she has attained majority. As against the major daughter, against the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, passed in M.C.No.26 of 2004, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Brief facts lea...
B.S. Silver Emporium, Chennai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as stated therein.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in TIN:33880282605/2014-2015, dated 01.06.2015, on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same. 2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:- a. The Petitioner is carrying on the business in silver ornaments and registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 having TIN 33880282605 and the CST Act having CST 921601. The Petitioner is carrying on the said business in the property belonged to a Mutt and the 2nd Respondent got the property on land rent. The wife of the Petitioner entered intoa lease agreement with the 2nd Respondent and as per the said agreement, the wife of the Petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the cost of the construction and payments were made in terms of the agreement. The construction was completed and the superstructure was leased out t...
Fariza Begam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 27.06.2012, made in S.C.No.399 of 2011, by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.399 of 2011 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. She stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 404 IPC. By judgment dated 27.06.2012, the trial Court convicted her under both the charges and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 404 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The decea...
K. Arumugam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Differently Abled Welfare ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents jointly and severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) by way of compensation.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, for causing the death of the son of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has stated that his son, namely, A.Vijay Anand, was studying at C.S.I. Higher Secondary School for the Deaf, Mylapore, Chennai. The school authorities had organised an excursion to Mysore, for the students studying in the XI standard, during the academic year 2011-2012. The trip had been undertaken by the school, on 16.9.2011. While at Mysore, on 18.9.2011, the petitioner had been...
M/s. Sree Foundation, Chennai Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer-I, Nungamba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as stated therein.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to remove the charge and lift the attachment created in respect of immovable property at Old No.510, New No.6, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 and comprised in Old Survey No.6072, 6073 and 6075 and re-survey No.602, measuring an extent of 8 grounds and 1290 sq.ft. 2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:-a. The Petitioner firm had entered into an agreement of sale dated 20.01.2010 registered as Document No. 101/2010 in the Sub Registrar's Office of Sowcarpet for purchase of immovable property situated at old No. 510, New No., 6, Mint Street Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 and comprised in old survey No. 6072,6073 and 6075 and re-survey No. 602 measuring an extent of 8 grounds and 1290 sq.ft with the third respondent herein, namely M/s Cosmo Foundations Ltd. At the time of entering ...
R. Natarajan Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NLC Limited, Neyv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of certiorarifed mandamus to call for the entire records in pursuant to the termination order issued by the first respondent vide Memo No.CMD/NLC/Disc.Action/117/2014 dated 01.10.2014 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and attendant benefits within a stipulated time.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 1st October, 2014, whereby the services of the petitioner as Superintendent, Gr.II/SEcurity/TA, was terminated with immediate effect as void ab-initio on the ground that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of Security Guards (Sainiks) against the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe without belonging to the said community, the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. The facts in brief germane to the adjudication of the instant...
Ramar and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding, dated 02.10.2015 of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same, consequently directing the 2nd respondent to grant permission and necessary protection to perform the cultural programme (I.e.,) Adal Padal Programme on 27.10.2015 TAMIL at 10.00pm in the eve of Arulomighu Sri Mariamman Kovil at Karisallur, Pethanadarpatti Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.) 1. Mr.N .Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the Respondent. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned procee...
R. Venkatachalam Vs. R. Singaram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the C.C.No.24/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Trichirappalli.) 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 petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
S. Suresh Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Anju Kiramam ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.81 of 2014 dated 19.02.2014 u/s. 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.81 of 2014 dated 19.02.2014 u/s. 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the final report has already been filed which was taken on file in C.C.No.215 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. 3. Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) the Criminal Origina...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »