Chennai Court December 2015 Judgments
S. Poongavanam and Others The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Hou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the 4(1) notification, issued by the first respondent published in Tamil Daily Dinakaran, dated 19.11.2006, vide his proceedings DIPR/214/land/06 and to quash the same.) 1. The respondents herein had initiated land acquisition proceedings against the petitioners to acquire the land, to an extent of 54 Acres, comprised in Survey No.385/2B of Semmancheri Village, Kancheepuram District, for implementation of neighbourhood scheme. Accordingly, the first respondent had published 4(1) notification, in the Tamil Daily Dinakaran ?, dated 19.11.2006. Challenging the said notification, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, on instructions, has submitted that the land acquisition proceedings for the above said land was dropped vide G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 29.08.200...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan @ Basha Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in C.C.No.10 of 2015 dated 24.08.2015 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai.) 1. The conviction and sentence dated 24.8.2015 passed in Calendar Case No.10 of 2005 by the Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.8.2014 at about 2 p.m., a secret information has been received by the Inspector of Police, Ashok Nagar Police Station to the effect that both accused are vending Ganja and accordingly on the same day, the Sub Inspector of Police and others have gone to the place of occurrence. The first accused has escaped form the place of occurrence and the second accused has been found in possession of 1.200 Kgms., of Ganja and subsequently, a report has been given to the Inspector of Police and a case has been registered under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act in Crime No.951 of...
Tag this Judgment!Mountain Spinning Mills Limited Vs. The Director (Distribution), Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to forthwith provide uninterrupted power supply to the petitioner Mill in HTSC No.92 to the exception of scheduled load shedding and any contingency areas like grid failure, overloading, etc as per the representation, dated 12.09.2015, given to the respondents herein based upon the order dated 05.03.2015, in the Writ Appeal No.190 of 2015, passed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner is a Spinning Mill and this Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents/TANGEDCO to forthwith provide uninterrupted power supply to the petitioner Mill, having a High Tension Service connection bearing HT SC No.92 to the exception of schedule load shutting and any contingency like grid failure, overloading etc., by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2015, which has been submitted by the petitioner based on the judgment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC against the WP.No.35394 of 2015 dated 03.11.2015.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The petitioner has filed this present review application seeking review of our order dated 03.11.2015. The writ petition, as apparent from the order, sought to assasil the public notice issued by the second respondent/Principal Secretary (Home), qua wearing of helmets by two wheeler driver and rider as compulsory from 01.07.2015 failing which, certain consequences would follow. The order speaks for itself. 2. In the review application filed by the petitioner, we may notice it begins with making averments in the nature as if the order is passed only by one of us (The Chief Justice). The fact is that the order was passed by the Division Bench. We brought this to the notice of the petitioner at the inception itself, but he stated that since the Chief Justice dictated the order, he thought a review should be filed in this manner. We may notic...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Vs. Arul Kumar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2015 in A.S.No.24 of 2014 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam is the appellant herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent inunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property to the third parties. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 04.08.2014 dismissed the suit. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. By decree and judgment dated 07.03.2015, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court with this second appeal. 2. The case of the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mukanchand Bothra Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2015 on 04.09.2015.) 1. This revision challenges the order of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2015 on 04.09.2015, dismissing a complaint u/s.203 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint before learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, informing commission of offence u/s.191 IPC alleging that false affidavits stood filed by the third accused in the course of proceedings in C.S.No.652 of 2004 on the file of this Court. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint in exercise of powers u/s.203 Cr.P.C. under orders dated 04.09.2015 primarily on the reasoning that Section 195 Cr.P.C. was a bar thereto There against, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. 3. Heard Mr.M.Gagan Bothra, who is before this Court as a powe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramadoss Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order in Criminal M.P.No.3295 of 2010 dated 20.03.2012 passed by XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2010 in Calendar Case No.34/2005 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court [CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions]. 2. The Revision Petitioner as Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2010 in Calendar Case No.34 of 2005 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.34 of 2005, pending on the file of the trial court. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as 7th accused in Calendar Case No.34 of 2005. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is a company by name M/s.TTG Industries Ltd.,; the second ac...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Krishnamurthy and Others Vs. C.R. Satyanarayanan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
(Prayer:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.83 of 2010 dated 10.08.2010 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.6543 of 2006 dated 25.08.2009 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.6543 of 2006 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and the third respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. 2. The said suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from in any manner alienating or executing the sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 or any one else except in the name of the plaintiffs without the concurrence of the plaintiffs and till such time the dispute between the parties herein are settled. ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sivakumar Vs. Puducherry Housing Board, represented by its Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
(Prayer: Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order dated 13.2.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.25643, 27086 to 27100, 27468, 28561 to 28571, 28758, 28795, 28796, 29109, 29793, 32070 to 32074 of 2014.) Common Judgment Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant intra-Court appeals arise from the common order dated 13th February, 2015 passed in W.P.Nos.25643, 27086 to 27100, 27468, 28561 to 28571, 28758, 28795, 28796, 29109, 29793, 32070 to 32074 of 2014. Except the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.29109 and 29793 of 2014, the other writ petitioners have filed the instant writ appeals assailing the aforesaid common order. 2. For the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their arraignment in the instant appeals. 3. The instant writ petitions were preferred by the appellants seeking to quash the proceedings dated 18th August, 2014 passed by the second respondent / Secretary, Puducherry Housing Board, Anna Nagar, Puducherry, whe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Kalaignar TV Private Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 8.10.2015 in S.P.No.345/Mds/2015 in I.T.A. No.1245/MDS/2015. T.C.A.No.1179 of 2015: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 8.10.2015 in S.P.No.346/Mds/2015 in I.T.A. No.1246/MDS/2015.) Common Judgment: (M. Jaichandren, J.) 1. The Tax Case (Appeal) No.1178 of 2015 has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 8.10.2015, in S.P.No.345/Mds/2015, in I.T.A. No.1245/MDS/2015. 2. The Tax Case (Appeal) No.1179 of 2015 has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 8.10.2015, in S.P.No.346/Mds/2015, in I.T.A. No.1246/MDS/2015. 3. On hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, it is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »