Chennai Court November 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.
Murugan @ Vetrivel Murugan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 25.06.2015, made in S.C.No.322 of 2012, by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.322 of 2012 on the file of the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 25.06.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial Court acquitted the accused from the other charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The appellant/accused is a resident of Kulayaneri Village in Tirunelveli District. The decease...
M/s. Essor Hotels Private Limited, Madras Rep. by its Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.05.2006 made in C.S.No.150 of 1987.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned single Judge, dated 09.05.2006 passed in C.S.No.150 of 1987 dismissing the suit. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : (i) The plaintiff company was registered as a Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 on 01.07.1971. In pursuance of the objects, the plaintiff set up a hotel business under the name and style of Hotel Gokula at Poonamallee High Road, Madras. The said Hotel consisted of 73 rooms with various other amenities like conference hall, bar, restaurants and others. For the purpose of raising necessary funds for running the hotel, the plaintiff company approached the first defendant Bank for various loan facilities. The plaintiff was sanctioned (a) Term l...
M/s. St. Michael High School rep. by its Correspondent Vs. The Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitionsare filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in RC.No.216/G and M/2015, dated 03.07.2016 and quash the same as illegal and in violation of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.) 1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.12637 of 2016 is a Government aided school known as M/s.St. Michael High School, Kumarapuram Thoppur Post, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District and it is represented by its Correspondent. W.P.(MD).No.18431 of 2016 has been filed by the President of the Parent Teachers Association of the said school. In both the writ petitions, one and the same order is challenged on common grounds. Therefore, we have heard both the Writ Petitions together and dispose of the same by means of this common order. 2. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order of the District Collector, Kan...
Tvl.New Kasim Stores Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in TIN.33805483207/2013-14 dated 30.08.2016 and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent in TIN.33805483207/2013-14, by which, the 2nd respondent confirmed the proposal based on the department website report without verifying the books of account of the petitioner and also without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay the balance tax due for 2013-2014 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the sale turn over of the petitioner concern has been filed through e-filing as per the procedure contemplated by the respondents; that the 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- Next ›