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.
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
1. This application has been filed to vacate the ex-parte injunction granted on 17.09.2009, which was subsequently made absolute on 23.10.2009 in O.A.No. 972 of 2009 in C.S.No. 812 of 2009. This application has been filed by the second defendant in the suit. 2. The suit in C.S.No. 812 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants to pay jointly or severally the sum of Rupees One Crore (Rs.10000000/-) as compensation to the plaintiff for having caused defamation and consequentially; (ii) directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants publish an unconditional apology in prominent news papers; and (iii) directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants to pay the costs of the suit; 3. O.A.No. 972 of 2009 had been filed seeking the following relief:- to grant interim injunction restraining the first, second defendants from making defamatory, scurrilous, derogatory and further false allegations against the plaintiff pending...
M/s. Welcome Fisheries Limited rep. by Director Vs. The Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in W.P No.149 of 2016 on the file of this Court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.06.2016 passed in W.P No.149 of 2016, directing the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal as against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case, transpires that the assessee is an exporter of Prawns/ Shrimps through Chennai Seaport and were paying Cess at the rate of 0.5% under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 during 1998-2004. Challenging the levy and collection of cess of 0.5% on export of prawns/ shrimps, the assessee filed W.P. No.13884 to 13887 of 1998 before this Court, on the ground that they are different from fish. While disposing the same, vide order dated 16.12.2006, this Court directed the assessee to file an appeal under Section 5A of the Customs Ac...
Vairavan Vs. The Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 17.12.2014 confirming the Impugned Order of the second respondent in his Proceedings R.P.37/2014 D2 dated 09.06.2014 confirming the Impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in M.P.No.82/2012/A3 dated 30.09.2013 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the eviction proceedings initiated and passed by the third respondent confirmed by the second and first respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a tenant under the temple and even though he was paying the rent regularly without any default, the temple has chosen to initiate action against the petitioner alone without resorting to evict other tenants. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is not the encroacher and on the other hand, the re...
D. Chinnajothi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the name of the respondents 4 to 11 and to issue a separate patta in the Petitioner's name.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the names of respondents 4 to 11 in the patta and to issue a separate patta in the name of the Petitioner. 2. According to the Petitioner, respondents 4 to 11 are not entitled to have their names included in the patta. Whether the contention of the Petitioner is correct or not, is for the third respondent to consider and decide and therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. However, as it is seen that the Petitioner has made a representation on 9.2.2015 seeking the very same relief before the official respondents, this Court directs the third respondent to consider the said repr...
S.P. Pandiyan Vs. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's enjoyment of the slaughter house situated at Melapalayam Ward, Tirunelveli District till the end of the lease period that is upto 28.07.2016.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent conduct of the respondent in extending the lease period. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Pakkirisamy and Others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, dated 02.07.2013 made in I.A.No.382/2012 in O.S.No.271/2009.) 1. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.382/2012 in O.S.No.271/2009 dated 02.07.2013. 2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners before this Court and the suit was originally filed seeking permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, the defendants entered into the suit schedule property and put up construction. The petitioners/plaintiffs were unable to prevent the respondents at the time of construction and consequently, the petition in I.A.No.382/2012 was filed before the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinm, seeking amendment of plaint. The amendment of plaint was filed to amend the prayer of permanent injunction to declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the p...
Senthil Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., by the appellant against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed in S.C.No.196 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.) S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.196/2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. The second accused in this case is one Mrs.Kavitha. The first accused/appellant stood charged for offences under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 I.P.C. A.2 stood charged for offences under Sections 120B, 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. By judgment dated 09.12.2015, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/A.1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 120B I.P.C; and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigoro...
M. Pappathi Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2016 and take necessary action to issue the patta in the petitioner's name within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for disposal of his representation, dated 16.11.2016, wherein and whereby he sought for transfer of patta in respect of the land in dispute, which is admittedly standing in the name of one Bose, who is said to be the brother of the petitioner's husband. The said person has not added as party respondent in this writ petition. However, considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this writ petition, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.11.2016 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the said per...
Sankar and Another Vs. Saravanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2013 made in C.M.A.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.09.2011 made in I.A.No.296 of 2011 in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi.) 1. The present Revision is filed against the order dated 18.09.2013 passed in CMA.No.24/2011 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, confirming the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.296/2011 in O.S.No.92/2011 dated 21.09.2011 by the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction before the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, in O.S.No.92/2011 and along with the suit I.A.No.296/2011 was also filed seeking interim injunction. 3. The learned District Munsif granted interim injunction on 21.09.2011. Challeng...
N. Kanagaraj Vs. M/s. Udavdoss Company by its Proprietors Shyam Sundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 18.06.2008 passed in R.E.A.No.448 of 2007 in R.E.P.No.73 of 2005 in O.S.No.417 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Salem.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ Judgment debtor/defendant in R.E.A.No.448 of 2007 in R.E.P.No.73 of 2005 in O.S.No.417 of 1995, dated 18.06.2008, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Salem. 2. The case of the petitioner/judgment debtor is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.417 of 1995, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Salem for recovery of amount and the suit was decreed on 07.10.2002 directing this petitioner/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest. 3. Pursuant to the decree, the respondent/plaintiff has filed R.E.P.No.73 of 2005 before the Additional Sub-Judge, Salem for executing the decree dated 07.10.2002 obtained by him for a sum of Rs.44,450/-. Notice was sent to this petitioner/ju...