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.
Chinnachamy Vs. Perumal Naicker and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2010 in A.S.No.35 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.130 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur and allow this Appeal.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vedasanthur, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff / appellant for declaration of his title and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. 3. The case of the appellant, as plaintiff in the suit, are as follows: 3.1. The suit property measuring an extent of 1.97 acres in Survey No.886 was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's maternal grand father one Vellaiya Naicker and that the said Vellaiya Naicker died le...
Elumalai Vs. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order, dated 21.04.2010 in C.M.P.No.1662 of 2010 in C.C.No.482 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 21.04.2010 in C.M.P.No.1662 of 2010 in C.C.No.482 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. 2. It is averred in the petition that the respondent / complainant filed C.M.P.No.1662 of 2010 under Section 311 Cr.P.C, to recall P.W.1 for further examination in Chief after dismissal of similar application filed by him in C.M.P.No.5477 of 2009. 3. While hearing the argument of both sides, it is found from the records that the learned Judicial Magistrate took the case on file for the offence under Section 193 IPC on the private complaint filed by the respondent without following the procedure enunciated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court called for the entire rec...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbako ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2013, passed in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2013, passed in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident occurred on 24.01.2006, around 3.00 p.m., near Tharasuram to Thiruvalanjuli Anna Statue Rowndana. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 2007, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.7,85,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant/the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation preferr...
V. Muniyaraj and Other Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 12.03.2014, made in S.C.No.14 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District -cum- Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.254 of 2015 are the accused Nos.1 to 4, the appellants in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.252 of 2014 are the accused Nos.5 and 6 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.293 of 2015 is the 7th accused in S.C.No.14 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. The Trial Court framed as many as four charges as detailed below: ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions1Nos.1 to 7148 IPC2Nos.1 and 2294(b) IPC3Nos.1 to 7302 r/w 149 IPC4No.3302 IPCBy Judgment dated 12.03.2014, the trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 7, as detailed below:- Accused No.Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount1, 2, 4 to 7148 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbako ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.01.2014, passed in M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Thanjavur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2013, dated 28.01.2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Thanjavur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident occurred on 29.12.2012, near GPT Water Service Palli Agraharam Bye pass Road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition, in MCOP.315 of 2013, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Thanjavur and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.7,04,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this appeal, mainly on the ground of quantum. 3. The learned counsel for the appellan...
R. Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Develop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the objections given by the petitioner vide letter dated 26.08.2016 given in respect of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.9809/2015/D2, dated 24.08.2016, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.16697 of 2007 reported in 2012 (1) MLJ 634 and as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.391 of 2012 dated 28.10.2014 and order dated 12.01.2010 in W.P.No.12274 of 2005 and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer and grant promotion to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the objections given by the petitioner vide letter dated 26.0...
N. Chittaranjan Vs. The Customs Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Trib ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, against the final order No.1132/11, dated 07.10.2011 in A. No. E/431/2011.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The appellant is one of the partners of M/s.Shri Jayamuruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.10.2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, had filed this appeal and it was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty on the partner and partnership Firm simultaneously under Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would reveal that based on the intelligence gathered by the Officers of HPU, Madurai, that M/s.Paragon Paper Private Limited, 543/2, Perumal Goundanpatti, B.Ammapatty, Theni District (In short "PPPL") are selling the Duplex Boards to the safety matches manufacturers situated in ...
P. Anbalagan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 401 r/w.397 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of dismissal dated 28.04.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.812 of 2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.) 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of dismissal dated 28.04.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.812 of 2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. 2. The case of the revision petitioner as averred in the Revision Petition in brief is as follows:- A case against the petitioner was registered by the respondent based on the complaint given by one S.Purushothaman / de facto complainant, who has been working as a driver on daily wages at the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Central Depot alleging that the petitioner / accused demanded illegal gratification from the de facto complaina...
Kandasamy Padayachi and Others Vs. Thangarasu Padyachi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1994 made in A.S.No.125 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.488 of 1982 dated 21.09.1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Perambalur.) 1. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiffs was allowed by the trial Court and also confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the appellant/first defendant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Court below have declared the title in favour of the plaintiff without any documentary evidence and relied upon the documents, which are unrelated to the suit schedule properties. 2. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Courts below ar...
T.P. Karunakaran Vs. Pannalal Rathore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
1. The petitioner, who is the 1 st accused in C.C.No.19 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, has come forward with this petition seeking to quash the said complaint. 2. The petitioner states that he is the 1 st accused in C.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC read with 34 IPC and 2 nd accused is the 2 nd respondent herein. The petitioner states that he is the Garment Exporter and doing business at New Delhi; he do not have any transaction with the complainant, who is the 1 st respondent herein. 3. According to the complaint lodged by the 1 st respondent herein, he was having business transaction with the 2 nd accused/2nd respondent herein and in that connection, the 2 nd accused agreed to pay Rs.8 lakhs as compensation in respect of cancellation of the order placed by him with the 1 st respondent herein; accordingly, the 2 nd respondent/2nd accused gave cheque dated 30...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »