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.
S. Thirumalaisamy and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode to consider the Bail Application of the Petitioner herein in Crime No.220 of 2016 on the file of the Respondent Police, on the same day of surrender.) 1. Mr.C.Emalias, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the Respondent. 2. According to the Petitioner, a case was registered under Sections 147, 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 342 I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989. 3. It is averred in the Petition that the Petitioner would surrender before the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and seek an order of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 4. It is to be noted that the relief of 'Anticipatory Bail' is not maintainable under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for by the Petitioner in the present...
M/s. American Dry Fruits Ltd., Rep. by its President Bimal Thacker and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgement and Decree of the Learned IV Addl. Judge City Civil Court, Chennai dated 22.10.2003 passed in O.S.No.5548 of 1996.) 1. The defendants 1,2 and 4 in O.S.No.5348 of 1996 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants. The said suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,63,470/- with interest on Rs.7,60,390.55 at 30% interest from the date of the plaint till date of realisation. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant a Limited company is carrying on business in dry fruits, appalams, having its Sales Office at Door No.44-A, Cawasji Patel Street Fort, Bombay-400 023, the 2nd defendant is the Managing Director and the 3rd defendant is the Export Manager, of the first defendant-Company. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 along with 4th defendant, required the plaintiff to supply Orid flour. On the above understanding, specified quantities of Orid Fl...
A. Felix Raj Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the FIR No.5 dated 31.07.2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police filed under Section 498-A, 506(1) I.P.C.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.C.Emalias, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st Respondent. 2.According to the Petitioner/Accused, the F.I.R.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Respondent/Police under Sections 498-A, 506(1) I.P.C. contained 'bundle of lies' and further that the Defacto Complainant had conveniently suppressed about the Petitioner's Petition for seeking divorce in I.D.No.3261 of 2016 pending on the file of the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 3. It comes to be known that on earlier occasion, the Petitioner/ Accused had filed I.D.O.P.No.2165 of 2016 before the concerned trial Court and they are pending. 4. Considering the fact that the investigation is pending and the two matrimonial cases filed by the Petitioner/Accu...
D. Gayathri Vs. S. Karuppanasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
(Prayer : Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in STC.No.212 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, Erode District and to quash the same.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the Criminal Original Petition to the effect that I may be permitted to withdraw this Crl.O.P.No.26445/2016 . 3. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this Crl.O.P.No.26445 of 2016 is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
Nagarajan Vs. Rameshkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 19.08.2009 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.424 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 06.11.2006.) 1. The defendant in this second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.62 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006 passed in O.S.No.424 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for possession and damages. 3. It is admitted that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff on 04.12.2003 and the sale deed, pertaining to the same, has been marked as Ex.A1. Therefore, it could be seen that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A4 have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as aggrieved persons) as against the Judgment dated 17.11.2016 in Spl.C.C.No.258 of 2015 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It comes to be known that the Petitioners/Appellants/A1 to A4 were found guilty in respect of an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and also they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. In so far as the offence under Section 323 (3 counts) of I.P.C. was concerned, the Petitioners/ Appellants/A1 to A4 w...
Yamuna Prasad Singh Vs. The State Rep. By Addl. Superintendent of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and set aside the order dated 07.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2015.) 1. The case of the revision petitioner is that he has been arrayed as an accused in the C.C.No.15218/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8, and alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s.428 of IPC. The case was originally registered under the impression that certain officials of the railway were involved and hence, provision of Prevention of Corruption Act was invoked in the FIR. Now after investigation, the respondent police have removed all the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by saying no official was involved and filed charge sheet only u/s.420 of IPC, arraying this petitioner as sole accused, alleging violation of contract conditions. H...
M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manage ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.2776 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Fast Track court No.III) Madurai.) 1. The Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court challenging the award of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand only) awarded to the first respondent for the disability sustained in the accident occurred on 22.09.2004, when he was travelling in the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-39-M-6600 belonging to the second respondent herein from Madurai to Peraiyur and the same was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle got capsized on the left side of the road and resultantly, the first respondent/claimant sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, after contest, found that the driver was rash and ...
K. Anandan Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.03.2015.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.03.2015, wherein, he requested the respondents not to cancel the assignment of land at S.No.372/5 assigned in his favour as early as in the year 1999. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the very same survey number, however, in respect of different extent assigned to another person, a similar writ petition was filed and after considering such representation of that writ petitioner, the respondents have passed an order stating that there is no proposal for cancelling the assignment of that writ petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the respondents may be directed to pass similar order in his representat...
Offshore Infrastructure Limited Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to (i) appoint a Sole, independent and impartial Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes between the parties; and (ii) pass such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.) 1. An important question of law arises for consideration as to whether an ex-employee of any party seeking resolution of disputes by arbitration is disqualified from acting as an arbitrator in view of the amendments to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), by Act No.3 of 2016. 2.1. The petitioner, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was awarded with a contract by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited/first respondent for the work of fabrication and erection of structural steel in power house, mill bunker bay, auxiliary buildings and pipe rack, etc. for 1 unit of 2 x ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »