Chennai Court December 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.
P. Kumar Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide a new electricity connection in my name to my premises namely No.50, Annai Sathya Street, M.G.R.Nagar, Chennai-600 078, within a stipulated time in accordance with law.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that his father late Mr.C.Ramaiah was having possession of the property for more than 40 years and the Slum Clearance Board acquired the property and allotted it to his father in the year of 1981 and both the Slum Clearance Board and his father entered into a lease cum Sale agreement on 01.10.1981 and he had paid entire sale consideration. They are living along with his parent under one roof and having the electricity connection in the name of his father and they are jointly using the said power supply. His father Mr.C.Ramaiah died on 09.05.2002 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother viz., Mrs.Meena, hi...
M.R. Govindan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayers:- WP.No.19477 of 2015 is filed to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Respondent from infringing with the right of the Petitioner to quarry and transport stone and earth from the patta lands of the Petitioner, measuring 3.56.5 hectares, in S.F.Nos.3/1A, 1B, 3/2, 5/2 and 86/1, 86/2 and 87/1 (Part), in Sirumayilur and Chittlapakkam Villages, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, after expiry of the lease period, i.e. after 07.07.2015 on payment of necessary seigniorage fee, that too subject to the result of the issue as to whether the pattadar is liable to pay seigniorage fee or not, since the said issue was referred to the larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. WP.No.23928 of 2015 is filed to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Respondent from infringing with the right of the Petitioner to quarry and transport rough stone, cut stone, chakkai, jelly and gravel from the patta lands of the Petitioner, measuring 1.00.5 hectares, in S.F.No.25/2, in Ezhac...
Ramesh (A5) and Others Vs. State rep. through the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records from the Lower Court, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Madurai, at Periyakulam Camp in S.C.No.375 of 1999 on 10.11.2005 and acquit the appellants/accused.) Common Judgment: P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. Five persons were charge-sheeted in Crime No. 215/1998 registered on the file of Cumbum North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The case was taken on file by the committal Magistrate, namely Judicial Magistrate, Utthamapalayam as P.R.C.No.22/1999 and following the committal procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Madurai. The same was taken on file as S.C.No.375/1999 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Madurai @ Periyakulam for trial and disposal according to law. After trial, the learned trial J...
Balasubramanian and Another Vs. State represented by, The Woman Inspec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.204 of 2006 dated 06.07.2007 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Mahalir Court, Trichy.) 1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahalir Court, Thiruchirapalli are the appellants in the criminal appeal. They were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and the learned trial Judge convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A, held not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, but found them guilty of a lesser offence, namely an offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, each one of the appellants/accused was convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced as follows: 1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 306 I...
M/s. Khivraj Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. The Secretary (Home), Transport Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second reapondent and its Subordinate officials to register the petitioner's CIAZ-ZDI and CIAZ-ZXI (Automatic) Vehicles dispatched by the manufacturer to the petitioner show rooms at Mount Road, Adyar and Perungudi (OMR) during January and February 2015 by accepting 10% tax at the time of its registration with reference to the petitioner's representation dated 16.5.2015.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Transport Commissioner, Chennai / second respondent herein and his Subordinates to register the petitioner's CIAZ-ZDI and CIAZ-ZXI Vehicles despatched by the manufacturer to the petitioner show rooms at Mount Road, Adyar and Perungui(OMR) during January and February 2015 by accepting 10% tax at the time of its registration with reference to the petitioner's representation ...
K. Ajmal Khan and Others Vs. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide the electricity connection to the petitioners property situated at Plot No.285, Syed Sadik Nagar, Mangadu, Chennai-112, without insisting on No objection Certificate from the second respondent.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that he has constructed a residential building in Plot No.285, Syed Sadik Nagar, Mangadu, Chennai-600 112, and he applied for electricity connection for the above said building to the first respondent vide application dated 05.02.2014. Along with the application, he submitted the certificate issued by the Managing Trustee of the above said Trust certifying that he is the lawful tenant and power connection could be granted to him. He has submitted that when he approached the first respondent for the electricity connection, the first respondent orally informed him that they received...
M/s. Jyothy Laboratories Limited Vs. The Appellate Authority, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and documents pertaining to the said Interim Application - TSE-II/IA 3/2013 in TSE-II/11/2012 and after examining question of the legality and propriety thereof and to quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.) 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road, Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The petitioner is one of the most well-known Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) Companies in India and conducts business of manufacturing / marketing of various consumer products. Many of which have become house-hold names such as "Pril", "Margo soap", "Neem Active toothpaste", "Henko", "Ujala", "Exo" etc. The first respondent is the Appellate Authority constituted under th...
Kulanthaiyammal and Others Vs. S. Padmanaban and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: C.M.A.Nos.1587 and 2050 of 2015 are filed against the award, dated 09.03.2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Namakkal.) Common Judgment: S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.21,69,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim till realisation, awarded to the parents of the deceased Kandasamy, in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Namakkal, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai, has filed C.M.A.No.2050 of 2015. Not satisfied with the said quantum of compensation, parents of the deceased have filed C.M.A.No.1587 of 2015. 2. Since in both the appeals, quantum of compensation is the only issue, they are taken up together, and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. According to the claimants, the accident has occurred on 05.07.2013 at 05.00 p.m., on Malayalapatti &...
K. Devarajan and Another Vs. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 17.09.2007, made in C.C.No.03 of 2002, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.) Common Judgment: 1. These criminal appeals have been directed against the convictions and sentences, dated 17.09.2004, passed in Calendar Case No.3 of 2002, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No.I, Krishnagiri. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, by name, Samraj, is a resident of Narasipuram Village. For the purpose of augmenting his agricultural income, he decided to purchase a tractor and he applied for getting loan, from Dharmapuri Agricultural Bank. The concerned authority has directed him to execute a mortgage deed in respect of his lands. After making initial arrangements, he approached the first accused by name, Pachirajan, the then Sub-Registrar, Pennagaram, on 11.01.2001. The first accused has demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- as illegal grat...
M. Padmapriya and Others Vs. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Ref.SZ/P and IR/Desk-III dated 21.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.) 1. Several writ petitions have been filed by the Development Officers, who are presently working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, CBO-IV branch, Madurai and other branches, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chennai ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »