Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
V. Mangalavathi Vs. M. Ganesamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of acquittal passed in Crl.A.No.27 of 2014 dated 8.9.2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, by setting aside the well considered order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Fast Track court, Hosur in S.T.C.No.8 of 2012 dated 7.2.2013 by allowing the present Criminal Appeal.) 1. The order of acquittal dated 8.9.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2014 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri is being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant herein, as complainant, has filed the complaint in question under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur and the same has been taken on file in S.T.C.No.8 of 2012, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused. 3. It is averred in the complaint that the accused is a fri...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthalingam Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Urban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ ofDeclaration to declare that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent in RC.881/89 C, dated 05.05.1989 is abated in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, since the physical possession of the land in Survey No.103/1 to an extent of 0.43 acres out of 0.86 acres situated at Tambaram Village and Taluk, Kancheepuram District are with the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that an extent of 0.86 of land comprised in Survey No.103/1 situated at Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District is owned by 4 persons viz., 1.Meenakshi Memorial Education Trust (measuring to an extent of 0.43 cents), 2. Natarajan (measuring to an extent of 0.14 cents), 3. Jayakumar (measuring to an extent of 0.15 cents) and 4. Usha Rani, measuring to an extent of 0.14 cents. The petitioner has purchased the entire 0.86 cents of the property from the above said mentioned owner. The petitioner has purchased 0.43 cents out...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Aich Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Container Corporation of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to have the assistance of Shri Shernik Runwal, Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as petitioner's Defense Assistant in the enquiry held against the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent in No.CON/VIG-NWR/19/2015/AV dated 14/08/2015.) 1. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to have the assistance of Shri Shernik Runwal, Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as petitioner's Defense Assistant in the departmental enquiry pursuant to the charge memo issued by the first respondent dated 14.08.2015. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as General Manager - Finance and Accounts in the Southern Regional...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Chellappan and Others Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from initiating any proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the house sites in Plot Nos.77, 93, 94 and 78 in Vadivu Nagar, Chettypalayam Road, Vellalore Panchayat, Coimbatore, comprised in Survey Nos.484, 485, 486, 487 and their sub-divisions in Vellalore Village.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from initiating any proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of Plot Nos.77, 93, 94 and 78, in Vadivu Nagar, Chettypalayam Road, Vellalore Panchayat, Coimbatore, comprised in Survey Nos.484, 485, 486, 487 and its sub-divisions, in Vellalore Village. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioners, one Jagadish had formed a layout, known as Vadivu Nagar, consisting of more than ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan and Others Vs. K.R. Ravi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition No.3666/2013 filed under section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1961 against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2013 passed in R.C.A No.4 of 2010 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority(Sub Court), Vellore in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2010 passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Katpadi.) Common Order 1. Civil Revision Petition No.3666/2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A No.4 of 2010 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Vellore confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Katpadi. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.3667/2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A No.6 of 2010 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Vellore confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the...
Tag this Judgment!Aani Jenifer Presilla and Others Vs. The Tahsildar, Vellore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for transfer of patta in the names of the petitioners who are the purchasers of the plots in the Ambalal Nandhavanam layout at Nandhiyalam Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District.) 1. The Petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for transfer of patta in the names of the petitioners who are the purchasers of the plots in the Ambalal Nandhavanam Layout at Nandhiyalam Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District based on the application of the petitioners dated 30.4.2015 followed by a reminder/representation dated 27.11.2015. 2. Heard Mr. Muralikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.V. Subbiah, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are the purchasers of independent plots ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasamy Vs. State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.556 of 2006 dated 9.3.2011.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.556 of 2006 by judgment dated 9.3.2011 as follows, Conviction u/sSentence302 IPCLife Imprisonment and Fine of Rs.25,000/- i/d Six months R.I.506(ii) IPCOne year R.I. and Fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d One month R.I. is before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: (a) Pushpa @ Kamatchi, aged 38 years, is the widow of one Ramalakshmanan, through whom, she has two children Usha (PW-6) and Dhanalakshmi (PW-7). After her husband's death, Pushpa developed a live-in relationship with the appellant/accused, who was aged about 57 years. Their relationship soured and they got estranged. (b) On 16.8.20...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Manoharan Automobiles, rep by its Proprietor, S. Manoharan Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Declaration declaring that Sections 19(1), 19(10)(a) and 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are inconsistent with the charging Section 3 and the general scheme of annual assessment under Sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and further void as being arbitrary and irrational, infringing the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) and the resultant proposal to reverse the Input Tax Credit invoking Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act as violative of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that Sections 19(1), 19(10)(a) and 19(11) of the Tamil Nad Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, are inconsistent wi...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Sharon Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Customs, Excise and Serv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2041 of 2015, has been filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the impugned miscellaneous order No.41003 of 2015 dated 27.7.2015 in Final Order No.40357/2014/dated 27.6.2014 in C/16/2012-DB passed by the 1st respondent/Tribunal.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been filed against the Miscellaneous Order No.41003/2015, dated 27.7.2015, made in Final Order No.40357/2014, dated 27.6.2014, in C/16/2012-DB passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance of the stay order, dated 12.6.2012, as well as the order passed by this Court, dated 21.4.2014, in W.A.No.2592 of 2012, directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order. 2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been filed by the appellant raising the following substantial questions of law: 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ponniah and Another Vs. Savithri Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order made in E.A.No.131 of 2004 in E.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.S.No.386 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu dated 13.10.2015.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in E.A.No.131 of 2004 in E.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.S.No.386 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, the revision petitioners, who are 3rd parties have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.386 of 1983 for declaration, permanent injunction or in the alternative for declaration and recovery of possession. 3. The defendants filed their written statement disputing the averments stated in the plaint. However, subsequently, the defendants remained absent and therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit exparte on 12.11.2002. Though, originally the suit was decreed for declaration and permanent injunction, subsequently, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »