Chennai Court January 2016 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.
S. Vatsala Vs. K.S. Mohan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 made in A. Nos. 3516 of 2012 and 3515 of 2012 respectively in O.P. No. 731 of 2011.) Common Judgment Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. Synopsis:- 1. S.M. Subramanian Chettiar, testator of the Will dated 11.12.1996 died on 15.12.1996 leaving behind him two sons and 7 daughters as his legal heirs. As per the last Will and Testament, the deceased bequeathed the immovable property at Thanikachalam Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, to his two sons further directing to pay Rs.50,000/- to his daughters and appointed his own brother K.Chakrapani, ninth respondent herein, as the sole executor to carry out the terms of the Will. 2. Seeking Letters of Administration with a copy of the undisputed Will executed by the testator on 11.12.1996 at Chennai in the presence of witnesses, the two sons and two daughters of the deceased testator file...
State Represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 30.9.2009 made in W.P.No.39866 of 2006 (O.A.No.1599 of 1998) on the file of this Court.) P. Devadass, J. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order of the Writ Court dated 30.9.2009 passed in W.P.No.39866 of 2006. 2. The respondent, namely, K.Pandi was working as Inspector in the Local Fund Audit Department. He was deputed as Assistant Stock Verification Officer to Madurai Corporation for a period of 3 years. The third appellant, namely, the Chief Internal Auditor passed orders repatriating him to his parent Department as he is a native of Madurai and consequently Commissioner, Madurai Corporation relieved him from his post. 3. The respondent challenged his repatriation in O.A.No.6576 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. On 9.12.1993, the Tribunal granted him interim relief and directed issuing him posting orders to join the Madurai Corporation. Subsequently, on 15.4.1994, the said ...
Tvl. Sri Karthi Cement Agencies Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal has been against the order of the writ petition No.28203 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 29.10.2014, in W.P.No.28203 of 2014. 2. Paragraph 4 of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 29.10.2014, in W.P.No.28203 of 2014, reads as follows: 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is no averment by the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory remedy available to him under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. Furthermore, the impugned order of assessment was passed in April 2012 and the contentions raised appear to be fully factual. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is meant to be not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to work out his rem...
L. Eswari Vs. Yasotha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.02.2014 made in I.A.No.641 of 2013 in O.S.No.307 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court (Full additional incharge), Erode.) Common Order: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 04.02.2014 made in I.A.No.641 of 2013 and I.A.No.642 of 2013 in O.S.No.307 of 2008, wherein the applications filed reopen the evidence and to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 for the purpose of further examination and to mark some documents came to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note. While so, when the matter was in part-heard stage, the revision petitio...
P. Ramaiah Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner has submitted that he is an Advocate and appointed as Legal Adviser of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short TELC ?) by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC. It is submitted that though Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC has been elected legally, Mr.E.D.Charles causes hindrance to the smooth administration in respect of Churches,...
R. Parameswaran Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent herein to forthwith take appropriate action on the directions of the first respondent herein in O.Mu.16252/2007-B.1, dated 12.05.2007.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representations, dated 05.02.2007 and 27.03.2007, based on the order, dated 12.05.2007, passed by the first respondent herein. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioner, he owned properties in Survey Nos.56/2, 56/9, 57/1 and 57/2 of Nallambakkam Village. Besides, he is in possession of the poramboke land in Survey No.55 in the same village. His ancestors had been in possession of the land in Survey No.55 for generations together without any interference from any source whatsoever. He has put up a fencing and carrying on agricultural ac...
Manikandan Vs. The State rep.by The Station House Officer, Villupuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Assistant Sessions Judge at Villupuram in S.C.No.42 of 2006 dated 22.3.2007.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 22.03.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.42 of 2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to six months from 18.09.2004, the first accused and prosecutrix have loved each other. The first accused has given promise of marrying her. On the basis of assurance given by the first accused, both of them have had carnal copulation on many occasions and subsequently he refused to marry the prosecutrix. On 17.09.2004, the accused 2 and 3 have hurled invectives by using filthy words against the prosecutrix and further the second accused has also threatened her. After occurrence, the prosecutrix has given a complaint and ...
Manian and Another Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.271 of 2006 dated 4.3.2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 4th day of March, 2008 passed in Sessions Case No.271 of 2006 by the District and Sessions, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of elder sister of one Gopalakrishnan, who is none other than the husband of the victim by name Baby. The second accused is a close relative. The said Baby and Gopalakrishnan have loved each other and their marriage has been performed on 31.5.2000. After marriage, both the accused have caused torture to the said Baby and on 12.11.2004, the second accused has doused Kerosene on the person of the said Baby and the first accused has set fire on her. After occurrence, the father of the said Baby by name Venkata...
M/s. Vellore Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench, dated 31.8.2006 in ITA No.468/MDS/99.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This tax case appeal has been filed, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Chennai, dated 31.8.2006, made in I.T.A.No.468/Mds/99, relating to the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows: 2.1. The appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar. For the assessment year 1993-94, the original return of income, filed on 28.3.1993, had been accepted by the respondent in the intimation issued in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 28.7.1994. Accepting the letter of the appellant, dated 8.1.1994, the respondent had issued a notice...
Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian Vs. The District Collector, Theni District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.23818/2015/C1 dated 28.09.2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.38/2015/j.m.nf.o.tp. dated 08.10.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) Common Judgment V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by a person, who got registered as a Cable Operator in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, challenging the orders of the District Collector as well as the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable Television Corporation Limited, seizing the equipments and sealing the premises. 2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »