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.
G. Sivanandam Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order in Letter No.L.A.3(5)/5777/02, dated 25.07.2012 of the second respondent and subsequently direct the first respondent to reconvey the lands in Survey No.331/2 part situated in Mogappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner submits that land measuring an extent of 7.71 acres comprised in Survey Nos.331/2 and 332, 4.20 acres in Survey No.333, C-33, acres in S.No.334/1 and 334/2 and 1.88 acres in Survey No.319, 326/1, 320/2A and 327 and 329 situated at Mugappair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District originally belonged to his father. The petitioner along with his brothers and sisters acquired the property by inheritance and they are co-owners of the said land. The petitioner further submits that the land in Survey No.332 measuring 3.20 acres was allotted to his exclusive share and in law vests in him...
Kanchi Silk Palace, Chennai Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his notice No.TN/NS V/51-00-085173-000-1002/C-18 Adhoc, dated 17.09.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondent to issue an individual notice to the petitioner.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice, dated 17.09.2013, issued by the respondent to the petitioner and to direct the respondent to issue an individual notice to the petitioner. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioner, their firm is carrying on silk sarees and textile business in a rented premises, which has a separate electricity service connection bearing S.C.No.235-29-1194. Their firm is an assessee under the Income Tax Act in respect of the income derived from the business and having five employees. Since their firm is not carrying out any manufacturing acti...
Madhavan and Others Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.62/2006 dated 19.11.2008.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 19.11.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.62 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, are being challenged in the present criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant by name Saradha is the wife of the deceased by name Periyasamy and their house is situate in Alamaram Karungannan Kottai. The defacto complainant and the said Periyasamy have been blessed with five children. The accused are the relatives of the defacto complainant. The husband of the defacto complainant and others are owning 60 acres of common land, wherein, the husband of the defacto complainant is having 1/3rd share. In between the families of the defacto complainant and accused, with regard to enjoyment of the property, a problem has been in existence and...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Balaha Chemicals Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer in T.C.A.No.906 of 2013: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, dated 14.2.2013, in ITA No.308/Mds/2012, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.) Common Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. The above Tax Case Appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.308, 309 and 310 of 2012, relating to the assessment years, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2001 and 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1) The respondent in the present appeals, (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") had been engaged in the dealership and distribution of various industrial chemicals, which are being used in the textile industry. The assessment of the assessee, for the assessment years 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, had been completed, disallowing the claim for deduction of commission, as expenditure paid to D.D.Vyas, Proprietor of M/s.Shree Narottam Agencies, Sriniva...
Dinakaran Vs. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Erode Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the conviction and consequential sentences passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Magalir Fast Track Court), Erode, dated 01.09.2015 made in S.C.No.22 of 2015.) 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the conviction and sentence, dated 1.09.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.22 of 2015 by the District and Sessions Court/Mahalir Fast Track Court, Erode. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, by name, Prabakaran and deceased, by name, Michel Rajathi, have served together in Mayavar Milk dairy and both of them have loved each other and subsequently, they left their houses and started to live together in the house of one Kandammal. On 20.4.2013, the second accused has scolded the deceased by way of saying that she should commit suicide. On the same day, during evening hours, she committed suicide. After occurrence, the brother of the deceased has given a complaint against the accused a...
Govindan and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and conviction made in S.C.No.240 of 2006 dated 9.7.2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.) 1. The conviction and sentence dated 9.7.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.240 of 2006 by the Mahila Court, Salem are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Chinnammal @ Chinnapillai, her daughter, viz., Malar and her husband by name Chandran have taken two daughters of Chinnaperiammal from Bangalore to their native Village and asked one Kumar, son of the said Chinnammal @ Chinnapillai to make arrangements for their marriage and he refused and after 2 or 3 days from such occurrence, the said Chinnaperiammal and her husband have searched their daughters and they have not been able to trace them and due to that, all the accused have come to the house of the deceased and threatened her and also attacked her and due to their overtacts,...
Manikunjan @ Manikandan @ Karuppusamy Vs. State by Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.293 of 2006 dated 26.02.2008 on the file of the Sessions Court/Magalir Neethimadram, Coimbatore.) 1. The conviction and sentence dated 26.2.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.293 of 2006 by the District and Sessions/Mahila Court, Coimbatore are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased by name Selvi @ Chitra. On 25.10.2004, both the accused and deceased have worked in their field. At that time, the deceased has requested the accused to give necessary permission to go to her parents' house. The accused has refused her request and due to that, a tussle has arisen between them and the accused has slapped her and due to that, the deceased has consumed pesticide by name Endosulphan and subsequently she passed away. After occurrence, the father of the deceased by name Ayyavoo, as defacto complainant, has give...
Vignesh Vs. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge (Mahalir Needhimandram), Chennai, in S.C.No.360 of 2011, dated 6.12.2012.) 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the convictions and sentences, dated 6.12.2012, passed in Sessions Case No.360 of 2011, by the Mahalir Needhimandram, Chennai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, by name, Stella, is a minor daughter of the defacto complainant, viz., Maheswari. On 17.1.2011, at about 7.00 p.m., with an intention to rape the prosecutrix, the accused has taken her to a lane, which situates near her house and put his hand into her private part and subsequently, put his private part into the mouth of the prosecutrix and due to the overt acts of the accused, the prosecutrix has sustained injuries. After occurrence, the defacto complainant has given a complaint against the accused and the same has been registered in Crime No.59 of 2011. 3. On ...
Y.S. Kothandaraman and Others Vs. S. Suganthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., to set aside the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 21.08.2013 made in A.S.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 11.06.2010 made in O.S.No.1109 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Alandur and allow this appeal.) 1. The defendants in O.S.No.1109 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, Chennai are the appellants herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was originally filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant for permanent inunction to restrain him from in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and therefore, the defendants 2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The trial Court by decree and judgm...
Bagavathiappan Pillai Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the case pending against the petitioner in Special Case No.10 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.) 1. The filing of a private complaint on 18.07.2013 by the defacto complainant / 2nd respondent, against a Public Servant (the petitioner herein) without obtaining sanction from the competent authority, b) order by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil dated 21.08.2013 and consequent registration of FIR in Crime No.9 of 2014 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, c) the investigation conducted by the 1st respondent, are claimed to be illegal and abuse of process of Court and on these grounds, the petitioner seeks directions to quash the same. 2. The specific contentions with regard to filing of private complaint, direction issued by the Magistrate for registration and investigati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »