Chennai Court December 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.
Sahul Hameed Appellant Vs. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.372 Cr.P.C against the judgment in S.C.No.334 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 26.04.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No.334 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. They stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. By Judgment dated 26.04.2011, the trial Court acquitted both the accused from the said charges. The appellant herein is the brother of the deceased. Aggrieved over the said acquittal, he has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sikkandar. He was a businessman, having vast extent of properties in Chennai City. The first accused was a close friend of the deceased. The deceased sold three shops in Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai to the first accused three years before the occurrence. After the sale was completed, the deceased had ...
K. Kuppanna Gounder (Died) and Others Vs. R. Sivakami and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000, made in A.S.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 24.4.2000, made in O.S.No.239 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000, made in A.S.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 24.4.2000, made in O.S.No.239 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. 2. The appellants are the Defendants 2 and 3, who lost before both the courts below. Pending appeal, the 2nd Appellant died. Appellants 3 to 6 were impleaded as his Legal Representatives. 1st Respondent is the plaintiff. 2nd Respondent is the 1st Defendant in the suit. The Respondents 3 to 12 are the Defendan...
M/s Allied Trading Company Rep. by Mohammed Rafeeq, Chennai Vs. The Ch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the second respondent herein vide Ref.No. MEE/SD/AEE/F.Disp.24/2-14/4179, quash the same and direct the Respondents herein to order refund of the money deposited by them, in respect of the undelivered quantity of dredged/Split coal to the tune of 2920.960 MTs.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the communication, dated 03.10.2016, issued by the second respondent refusing the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount in connection with the disposal of the split coal. 2. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, as well as counter affidavit filed by the second respondent would certainly indicate that there are disputed question of facts between the parties, which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising the discretionary jurisdic...
D. Govindaraj Vs. The Indian Bank, Represented by its Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the return endorsement made in E.A.SR.No.7334 of 2008 in E.P.No.93 of 2005 in O.S.No.288 of 2001, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, dated 12.09.2008 for holding that the loan on the basis of which the suit has been filed stands automatically cancelled and the E.P. itself is liable to be dismissed.) 1. The judgment debtor in EP.No.93 of 2005 is the revision petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order of returning the application in E.A.SR.No.7334 of 2008 in E.P.No.93 of 2005 in O.S.No.288 of 2001, dated 12.09.2008, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. 2. The case of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that originally the suit was filed by the respondent/decree holder for recovery of amount of Rs.1,54,139/-. The said suit was decreed on 29.11.2002, in favour of the respondent/decree holder. For executing the decree, the respondent/decree holder/bank has filed E.P.No.88 ...
SUN Exports, Mannady, Chennai Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Air Por ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.41360/2015 dated 30.09.2015 in Appeal No.C/309/2011-SM, passed by the second respondent Tribunal, which was received by the Appellant on 23.11.2015.) Judgment: Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the Final Order No.41360/2015 dated 30.9.2015, passed by the Tribunal, whereby the redemption fine and penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) were enhanced. 2. The case of the Revenue as is evident from the records is that for violation of the rules relating to Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, wherein, there was non-declaration of MRP on the packaged goods, which is mandatory and, therefore, after issue of show cause notice, the confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. Against the said order, the appellant/importer filed appeal before the Commiss...
Shankar Karikar Vs. M/s. Envee Enterprises by its Partner Sasikala Vam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- a. directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.52,34,750/- with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.35 lakhs. b. directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. 2. The plaint averments are that the 1st Defendant is a Partnership Firm and the Defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. The 1st Defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 9.8.2006, agreeing to sell an extent of 2800 sq.ft. of land in Old Door No.19/1, New Door No.23, Centoph Road, Chennai, comprised in RS.No.3856/B, Block No.76, Mylapore, for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. It had been agreed that the sale shall be completed within a period one month from the date of release ...
Mubarag Ali Vs. The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the respondent No.1 in Na.Ka13088/2015/A7 dated 26.08.2016 quash the same and consequently directing the respondent No.1 to conduct fresh auction with transparent manner to the shop No.1 Daily Market, Begambur, 39th Ward, Dindigul by following the Tamilnadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent corporation, dated 26.08.2016, wherein, he was directed to vacate shop No.1 and hand over the same to the Corporation on the reason that he has unlawfully occupied the said shop, when the said shop was allotted in favour of the second respondent in pursuant to public auction taken place. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the shop No.1 for a long time and at any event it is not an unlawful possession in his hand. 3. On the othe...
Sivathanu Pillai Vs. The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Engineer, Incor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to repay the rent amount collected by the first respondent for the past 52 years with interest and consequently to forbear the first respondent from demanding or collecting any further rent in respect of S.No.477/7, in Eraichikulam Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a mandamus directing the first respondent to repay the rent collected from the Petitioner for the past 52 years with interest and consequently to forbear the first respondent from demanding or collecting any further rent in respect of the property at S.No.477/7, in Eraichikulam Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2. Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. 3....
V. Narayanasamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent bearing Na.Ka.Aa.No.1/1284/2016, dated 17.11.2016 and to quash the same as mala-fide, arbitrary and illegal.) 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent bearing Na.Ka.Aa.No.1/1284/2016, dated 17.11.2016,as mala-fide, arbitrary and illegal. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The proceeding impugned in this Writ Petition is nothing but a letter addressed by the first respondent to the Government Pleader, District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, seeking for his legal opinion as to whether patta can be transferred or it has to be issued by inclusion of the...
Vivekanandan Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 04.07.2000 made in WC.No.190 of 1998 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I, Chennai - 600 006.) Judgment: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 04.07.2000 made in WC.No.190 of 1998 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I, Chennai. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant mainly contended that the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,19,040/-, directing the second respondent to pay the compensation amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the award amount carries 12% interest from the date of filing of petition, till the date of deposit. Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants would mainly contended that the trial Court without any application of mind ought to have awarded compensati...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »