Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
V. Arumugam and Others Vs. S. Jayaraman, The Chief Engineer (AE), Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.7742 of 2008 dated 12.12.2012 on the file of this Court.) K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors that the writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.266 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.7742 of 2008, wherein notice has been ordered by the Division Bench. 2. Recording the abovesaid submission, this Contempt Petition is closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to revive if an occasion so arises in future. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Franklin D. Paul @ Paulkutty, Secretary, St. James Sports Club, Chitha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 22.12.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.22472 of 2015.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The 7th respondent in the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.22472 of 2015 is the appellant before this Court. Challenging the order in W.P.(MD)No.22472 of 2015 dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, so far as the finding relating to the TDTA, Middle School at Chidambarapuram is concerned. 2. The first respondent Mr.P.Stalin, who is the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.22472 of 2015 before the learned Single Judge for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 herein not to grant any permission to the 7th respondent or his men to hold any religious cultural activities or any other events scheduled to commence from 22.12.2015 to 01.01.2016 at Middle School, TDTA Ground, Chidambarapuram Village situated in Old Ward No.2, (New Ward No.5) in Survey No.83, Palavoor Village P...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Sri Maruthi Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor Baalaji Vs. The De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.D.No.2194/2016-17 dated 05.12.2016 and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal being ultravires to the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.) 1. Issue notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of counsel for parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. By virtue of this Writ Petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the first respondent. 2.1 To be noted, via, the impugned order, the first respondent has imposed a tax on the petitioner in the sum of Rs.1,11,292/-. Furthermore, by the very same order, the first respondent has given opportunity to the petitioner to compound the offence, purported to have been committed under Section 71 (3) (e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Ta...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jeeva Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Salem Town Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.03.2016 passed in S.C.No.8 of 2015 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The accused is the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem ordering the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. Viji @ Manikandan (the deceased) is the son of Palanisamy (P.W.1). Geetha (P.W.3) is the sister of the deceased. Chandra (P.W.4), Jana, Jeeva (accused), Anand, Santhosh (P.W.2) and the deceased were friends. 4. On 28.01.2014, at about 9.00 p.m, the deceased was picked up by the accused. P.W.2 Santhosh, P.W.4 Chandra accompanied him. They spent time together chit-chatting near Muniappan Temple till 1.00 a.m on 29.01.2014. The accuse...
Tag this Judgment!V. Easwaran and Others Vs. The Sub Registrar, O/o the Sub Registrar, N ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 29.10.2010 and 29.08.2016 by the first petitioner and to annul all documents registered in contravention of the provisions circulated in circular No.67C No.52338/C1/2011 dated 03.11.2011 by the third respondent.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 29.10.2010 and 29.08.2016 to annul documents registered in contravention of the provisions circulated in Circular No.67C No.52338/C1/2011 dated 03.11.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Though notice was privately served on the respondents 4 to 16, they have not chosen to appear before this Court and their names are printed in the cause list. 3. It is see...
Tag this Judgment!P. Cecili Vs. Devathal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore dated 18.07.1996 passed in A.S.No.120 of 1996 setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 24.04.1995 passed in O.S.No.907 of 1991.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit is for specific performance and mandatory injunction to transfer 17 shares of the first defendant's Society held in the name of one K.Nachi to the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court has allowed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate Court has reversed the trial Court's finding and dismissed the appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal is as under:- The first defendant-Housing Society with the financial assistance of the Government constructed 112 houses for it members and alloted to them on lease-cum-sale agreement for a period of 25 years. One Mr.K.Nachi, the hu...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagaraj Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Anaimalai Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore dated 07.01.2016 in S.C.No.152 of 2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. By Judgment dated 07.01.2016, the trial Court convicted the accused in both the charges and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Sec.324 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief, ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Paul Vs. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents NO. 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for establishing and unauthorised church causing air pollution and pass such other orders.) 1. When the matter was listed on 20.12.2016 for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, it was posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for default. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!A. Manickavel Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticori ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.429/2016 Tamil dated 21.06.2016 and the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.429/2016 Tamil dated 08.11.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner's building in Survey No.4257/59/2 and 4258/26/1, Block No.35, Ward No.4, Tuticorin, pending disposal of the retention application preferred by the petitioner dated 28.11.2016 under Section 56(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.) A. Selvam, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the notices issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.429/2016 Tamil dated 21.06.2016 and Na.Ka.No.429/2016 Tamil dated 08.11.2016 and quash the s...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Farwood Industries Limited, Represented by the Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent and quash the revision notice issued in TIN No.33020920465/2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15 dated 25.11.2015 issued therein and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders as per the reply letter filed on 26.02.2016 and also as per the various decisions of the Madras High Court and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing.) Common Order: 1. Issue Notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice for the respondent. 2. With the consent of counsel for parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. The petitioner has impugned three (3) separate notices of even date, ie. 25.05.2015, whereby, the respondent proposed reversal of Input Tax Credit (in short ITC), availed of by the petitioner. The three Assessment Years (in short AYs) involved in the captioned Writ Petitions are: AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11 and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »