Chennai Court October 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.
Rajathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent made in his proceedings Detention Order No.05/2016/C3, dated 23.06.2016, and quash the same and set the petitioner's husband, by name Rajangam, S/o.Mani, aged about 43 years at liberty from Central Prison, Madurai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Rajangam, S/o.Mani, aged about 43 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 23.06.2016, under Section 2(e) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Drug Offender . Challenging the same, she has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. K. Swarnaraj (minor) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: in both appeals: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.6154 and 6051/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment: 1. The United India Insurance Company Limited has brought these appeals challenging the impugned award dated 07.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.6154 and 6051/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the multiple injuries sustained by the claimants. 2. As both the appeals are arising out of the common award, they are taken up together for common disposal. 3. According to the claimants, on 16.01.2012 at about 10.00 hours, while the claimants were travelling in the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-25-Y-5757 at Sriperumbudur to Tambaram Road and nearing Navalur Village, Kanchipura...
M/s. Sekar Stores Home Mart Rep. by its Partner S.V.S. Manivannan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to an order made in S.A.No.16 of 2016, dated 26th April 2016, by which, the Debt Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai, while posting the matter for orders in S.I.A. Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of 2016, filed in S.A.No.16 of 2016 has dismissed S.A.No.16 of 2016. 2. Material on record discloses that S.I.A. No. 24 of 2016 has been filed to amend the prayer and grounds in S.A.No.16 of 2016 to challenge the auction sale dated 11/3/2016. S.A.No.16 of 2016 has been filed, under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against e-auction sale notice, dated 30/1/2016, issued by M/s. Pridvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Limited, Hyderabad. 3. During the course of hearing of the instant Civil Revision Petition, attention of this Court was brought to the notice of the record of proceedings in S.A.No.16 of 2016 and Mr. B. Natarajan, learned counsel fo...
M/s.Maharashtra Revangaon Wind Farm Development Private Limited Vs. M/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation.) 1. This Company Petition is preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2015. The scheme of amalgamation (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure 8 to this petition. 2. M/s.Maharashtra Revangaon Wind Farm Development Private Limited, petitioner in this petition, is the transferor company and M/s.Continuum Wind Energy (India) Private Limited, respondent in this petition, is the transferee company. 2.1. To be noted, in paragraph No.21 of the petition, it is stated that the transferor company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company and therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of Mahamba Investments Vs. IDI Limited reported in 2001 (105) Comp Cases 16, no separate petition, in any case, is preferred on behalf of the transferee company. 3. I must note that in thi...
D. Jeeva Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police Government R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash and permit the petitioner to withdraw the complaint dated 01.08.2016 registered in GRP (Egmore) P.S. Crime No.222 of 2016 and close the investigation of the case registered by the Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Egmore, against the respondent/accused herein to give quietus to the issue.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking the following prayer: to quash and permit the petitioner to withdraw the complaint dated 01.08.2016 registered in GRP (Egmore) P.S. Crime No.222 of 2016 and close the investigation of the case registered by the Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Egmore, against the respondent/accused herein to give quietus to the issue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name. 4. On the complaint lodged by Jeeva, the petitioner herein, the Sub Inspector of Police, GRP Egmore, Ch...
A. Dhakshanamoorthy Vs. The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in Ref.No.LL2/7355/2007 dated 21.7.2010 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the respondent not to revert the petitioner from the post of Night Watchman to Plot Watcher.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order impugned in Ref.No.LL2/7355/2007 dated 21.7.2010 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the respondent not to revert the petitioner from the post of Night Watchman to Plot Watcher. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed temporarily as Plot Watcher on 01.02.1981 and served for more than 29 years without any adverse remarks. For regularisation purpose, the petitioner along with eight others filed T.A.No.229/1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administr...
N. Soundar Rajan Vs. G. Senthamil Selvi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the O.S.No.126 of 2016 from the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and to transfer the same to the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, for further proceedings.) 1. The facts as stated by the petitioner in this petition is that the suit for partition is filed by the first respondent before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam in O.S.No.126 of 2016 and notice was served to the defendants in the suit. The defendants filed the written statement in the suit and the same is posted for framing issues. At this juncture, the second defendant in the suit filed the present petition to transfer the suit from the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam to the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner and the respondents are residing at Oddanchathram and the suit was unnecessarily instituted at Uthamapalayam by the first respondent o...
G. Ratan Kumar and Another Vs. The State represented by the Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.17945 of 2010: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crime No.99 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent dated 26.02.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, excess of jurisdiction and against the law.) Common Order: 1. While Crl.O.P. No.17945 of 2010, 20312 to 20314 of 2010 and 15425 of 2010 have been filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No.99 of 2010 dated 26.02.2010 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same, Crl.O.P. Nos.13652 and 13653 of 2010 have been filed seeking to call for the records of the order dated 14.06.2010 passed in C.M.P. No.636 of 2010 in X Crime No.99 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 2. On the complaint lodged by one Baskaran (de facto complainant), the respondent police registered a case in X Crime No.99 of 2010 on 26.02.2010 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC against Pandian (A1), ...
R. Lalitha and Another Vs. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the 2nd respondent dated 09.05.2016 in M.A.No.24 of 2015 in IA Sr.No.4945/13 in O.A.No.28 of 1998 and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J 1. Order impugned in this writ petition, made in M.A.No.24 of 2015 in IA Sr.No.4945/13 in O.A.No.28 of 1998, dated 09.05.2016, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, is extracted hereunder. "MA 24/15 IN IA SR 4945/13 IN OA 28/1998 9.5.2016 This is an application filed by the petitioners/defendants for condonation of delay of 850 days in representation IA SR.No.4945/13 which was returned by the Registry with certain objections. The only ground urged in the affidavit is that the returned application got mixed up with some other papers in the office of the counsel for the petitioners and for that reason, the petition could not be represented in time. It is stated that the delay is neither wilful no...
P. Mahalakshmi Vs. The District Educational Officer at Tirunelveli, Se ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order dated 11.03.2011 made in Neemu (A4)/39685/2009 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.) J. Nisha Banu 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order, dated 11.03.2011, passed by the second respondent, namely, the District Level Community Certificate Verification and Vigilance Committee, cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner's husband stating that the Certificate obtained by him was not a genuine one. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband A.Paramasivan was appointed as an Office Assistant in the Government High School, Palavoor, Tirunelveli District, in the year 1991. At the time of his appointment, the husband of the petitioner submitted a Community Certificate issued by the Tashildar, Nanguneri, Tir...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »