Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
S. Mukanchand Bothra Vs. Vairamuthu Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to take action on its own motion against the respondent for having committed criminal contempt under Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.) R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, party-in-person, praying this Court to take action on its own motion against the respondent for having committed criminal contempt under Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. The petitioner, a film financier by profession, has filed this contempt petition stating that the respondent/contemnor has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, pleaded that this Court should, of its own motion, take action against the respondent for the act of criminal contempt, by way of his speech, which, according to the petitioner, scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejud...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesan and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.260 of 2004 dated 29.04.2008 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.) 1. The convictions and sentences dated 29.4.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.260 of 2004 by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.7.2002, at about 6 p.m., in Nayakanurpudur, a dispute has been in existence in between the families of Kumaresan and accused with regard to cutting of a Neem tree and due to that, the first accused has attacked one Kasirajan by using a deadly weapon and thereby caused injuries. During the course of occurrence, the second accused has attacked one Amudha by using a deadly weapon and thereby caused injuries on her person. The third accused has attacked one Manickam by using a deadly weapon and thereby caused fatal injuries and subsequently he passed away. Fur...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuraj and Another Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vellor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.326 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Vellore.) 1. The conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.326 of 2007 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Vellore are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.2006 at about at about 2.30 p.m., in TASMAC shop, both the accused berated the defacto complainant by using filthy words and subsequently attacked him with an intention to murder and thereby caused injuries. After occurrence, the defacto complainant has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.761 of 2006. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer, viz., P.W.9 has taken up investigation and examined connected witnesses and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thangamuthu and Others Vs. The District Collector/Arbitrator, Erode ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.NH-47/Arbitration/2015, dated 05.01.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal dated 12.11.2015 filed under section 3-G(5) of National Highways Act for higher compensation and dispose the same on merits.) Common Order: 1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners claim for enhancement of compensation which came to be rejected by the District Collector by the impugned proceedings on the ground that the petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chitra Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ, calling for the entire records in Letter No.TNS/R/RO Dealership/Thammampatti, dated 24.04.2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein refusing to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of dealership for Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet at Thammampatti, Salem District and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider on merit the claim of the petitioner herein, ranked at S.No.2 in the panel prepared by the 'Dealer Selection Board' for allotment of Petrol/Diesel Retail Out let at Thammampatti in accordance with law without resorting to re-advertisement of the said location.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has submitted that she is a Post Graduate in M.Tech (Chemical Engineering) from I.I.T Madras. She served as Assistant Manager (Production)...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Hansraj Vs. C.R. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2015 passed in M.P.Nos.333 of 2015 and 334 of 2015 in R.C.O.P No.996 of 2010 on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the fair and final orders passed in M.P.Nos.333 of 2015 and 334 of 2015 in R.C.O.P No.996 of 2010, on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P No.996 of 2010 for eviction under Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(v), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 3. The petitioner/tenant filed counter in R.C.O.P.No.996 of 2010 and was contesting the Original Petition. Subsequently, since the tenant remained absent, the Rent Controller set him ex-parte and passed an ex-parte order of eviction on 16.12.2014. The...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. United Cargo Transport Services, Chennai Vs. The Customs, Excise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 35G of The Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Final Orders passed by the first respondent in Final Order Nos.40606 of 2015, made in ST/341-342/2012, dated 01.06.2015; 40607 of 2015, made in ST/341-342/2012, dated 01.06.2015; Final Order Nos.41045 of 2014, made in ST/341-342/2012, dated 26.06.2014 and Final Order Nos.41046 of 2014, made in ST/341-342/2012, dated 26.06.2014, respectively.) Common Judgment S. Vimala, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2805 and 2806 of 2015, 58 and 59 of 2016 have been filed by the Assessee / appellant herein, challenging the orders passed by the first respondent / CESTAT, in the Final Order Nos.40606 and 40607 of 2015, dated 01.06.2015 and Final Order Nos.41045 and 41046 of 2014, dated 26.06.2014, respectively. Brief facts:- 2. The appellant is a proprietry firm, engaged in providing transport facility (air, train and road) to various customers. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Lite Containers P Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal presented to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras `B' Bench, dated 10.11.2006, in I.T.A.No.707/Mds/2006.) 1. The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue had submitted that they may be permitted by this Court to withdraw the present tax case appeal, in view of the Circular No.21 of 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 10.12.2015, as the tax effect relating to the matter is less than Rs.20,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsels had further submitted that liberty may be granted to the Appellant/Revenue to revive the tax case appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 8 of the circular. 3. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, the present tax case appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn. It is made c...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Mohamed Ibrahim and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the proceedings initiated by the third respondent in his R.C.No.4680/86, dated 05.01.1986 is abated in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, since the physical possession of the land comprised in Survey Nos.722, 722/1 and 722/2A to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District is with the petitioners.) 1. The first petitioner has submitted that his father M.S.Sulthan Ibrahim, son of Mohamed Ismail purchased a land comprised in Survey No.722 measuring to an extent of 6.67 acres situated at Pallikaranai Village, the then Saidapet Taluk, now at Shozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District in and by a registered sale deed dated 28.05.1963 as Document No.1998 of 1963, at Registrar of Madras, Chengalpattu for valuable consideration from Mr.M.P.Mohideen Pitchai son of Peer Mohamed Sahib. The first petitioner has f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thulasibai and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and to quash the order of the second respondent herein made in his proceedings NK No.1294/93 D, dated 29.05.1995.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that she is the only daughter of her father Late Balaiah Naidu and her only brother Kothandan predeceased her father. The petitioner has further submitted that certain lands in Survey No.108/1 with an extent of 1.95 acres in No.5, Vilinjiambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, the then Chengalpet District now added in Greater Chennai was owned by her family. Her father's mother Chinnammal was the original owner. The petitioner has further submitted that her father Ballaiah Naidu, as the only heir of his mother inherited the said extent with full legal right. Thereafter, her father settled the extent of 35 cents in the property out of total extent of 1.95 acres mentioned above in favour of her by registered settlement d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »