Chennai Court February 2016 Judgments
R. Murugesan Vs. The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceeding D.No.998/2015 dated 17.12.2015 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and quash the same in so far as the finding recorded therein that the learned Subordinate Judge is not empowered to deal with the present complaint purportedly about the non-joinder of the necessary party in the suit and further direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in so far as it relates to the finding recorded therein that the learned Subordinate Judge is not empowered to deal with the present complaint purportedly about the non-joinder of the necessary party in the suit and to further direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal to cond...
Tag this Judgment!Junaithalikhan and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's father Layak Alikhan son of Sardarwalikhan M/A 53 years has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda vide detention order dated 29.6.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in S.C.No.64/2015 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison at Salem.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Layak Alikhan, aged 53 years, son of Sardarwalikhan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in S.C.No.64/2015, dated 29.6.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, D...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Region Bulk LPG Transport Owners Association Vs. Hindustan Pe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in Tender No.15000089-HD-10157 dated 22.01.2016 on the file of the second respondent, calling for additional tank, trucks for South Central Zone for Transportation of Bulk LPG, quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition assailing the tender notification dated 22.01.2016 issued by the second respondent, by which, the second respondent invited applications for supply of additional tank, trucks for South Central Zone for Transportation of Bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas (in short LPG). 2. The case of the petitioner, which are essential for disposal of this writ petition is as follows:- (i) The petitioner is a registered association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which was formed to promote and protect the welfare of their Members, who are Tank Truck Owners which are designed solely for the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pandian Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Impugned Notice dated 24.07.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to register and return the Sale Certificate issued by the State Bank of India, dated 06.05.2015.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Impugned Notice dated 24.07.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to register and return the Sale Certificate issued by the State Bank of India, dated 06.05.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the State Bank of India, Coimbatore, had issued a sale notice dated 10.02.2015 under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security In...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Kothagiri Town Panchayat, Nilgiris District and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayers: Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1186 of 1999 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 7.9.1998 made in W.P.No.3150 of 1990. Writ Petition in W.P.No.1947 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the respondent from enforcing the Na.Ka.No.142/2010 dated 29.01.2010 and evicting the petitioners from their shops at old red Kothagiri. Contempt Petition No.986 of 2010 is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of courts Act praying to punish the respondent for contempt by disobeying the Order this Court in W.A.No.1186 of 1999 dated 3.8.2000.) M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. As the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A.No.1186 of 1999. 2. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3150 of 1990 seeking a writ of mandamus d...
Tag this Judgment!Agrigold Foods and Farm Products Limited and Another Vs. Agri Gold Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, have jointly filed a Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.2.2016, vide Diary No. 6385 dated 18.2.2016, and would submit that in the light of the compromise memo, the suit may be decreed in the terms mentioned in it. 2. It is relevant to extract the terms of the compromise memo dated 16.2.2016, as under:- "1. The terms Plaintiffs and Defendant shall mean and include the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each party. 2. Subject to the terms of this Memo of Compromise, the Defendant shall be entitled to use and to seek/continue registration of the trademark AGRIGOLD only in respect of Brokerage on Commodity exchange, shares and securities included in Class 36. 3. The Defendant shall not use the trademark AGRIGOLD in respect of any other goods or services except as set out in para 2 above namely Brokerage on Commodity exchange, shares...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sethuraman Vs. State by rep. by the Dy. Supdt. of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of arrest, pending investigation in Cr.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. Petition is for anticipatory bail, in other words, issuance of a direction in the event of his arrest to release him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 323, 330, 355 and 506 (ii) IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 3. Petitioner is A1 in this case. 4. This is his fourth petition for anticipatory bail. 5. It all started with the missing of a cellphone from a woman. Case of theft has been registered by R1 Mambalam Police in Crime Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2014 under Section 379 IPC. The present case has been registered by CBCID in Crime No.1 of 2015. 6. In connection with the said theft case, ce...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. Sumathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.01.2016 made in Memo (No.Nil) in O.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Attur.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2015 pending on the file of Sub Court, Attur is the petitioner in the revision. The trial is in progress. After the completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff, the defendants were called upon to lead evidence and during the course of cross-examination of DW2, an attempt was made to introduce a xerox copy of a document produced by the defendants in an enquiry/investigation by the Police in Attur Police Station. The same was denied and the attempt made by the plaintiff to introduce the said document as one for the purpose of cross examination of DW2, resulted in a failure. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Memo dated 18.12.2015 for the production of the said document as a documentary evidence on his side. The same was negatived by t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Janaki Vs. K. Vairamuthu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Rule 19 of the Family Court's Act, praying to set aside the order dated 09.04.2015 made in unnumbered H.M.O.P.No. of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.) C.T. Selvam, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the rejection of a petition moved by the appellant, seeking relief under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner informed of being the wife of respondent, they having married on 02.06.1995, their being the parents of 2 children and of the respondent picking up vices and treating her cruelly. On such contentions, she sought dissolution of her marriage. 3. In passing the order under challenge, the Court below has observed that the Aadhar Card of the petitioner informed her year of birth as 1979 and since the date of marriage was informed to be 02.06.1995, the petitioner, on such date, would have been a minor, aged 16 years. It further noted that neither the marriage invitation ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Karuppusamy Vs. State by Additional Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to return the documents viz., Document No. 97 of 1980, dated 11.02.1980, Document No.98 of 1980 dated 11.02.1980, Document No.1164 of 1979, dated 30.11.1979, Document No.1165 of 1979, dated 30.11.1979, Document No.335 of 1995, dated 04.04.1995 and Document No.664 of 1986, dated 04.06.1986 to the petitioner.) 1. Petitioner, a third party seeks direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the respondent to return his property documents viz., Document No. 97 of 1980, dated 11.02.1980, Document No.98 of 1980 dated 11.02.1980, Document No.1164 of 1979, dated 30.11.1979, Document No.1165 of 1979, dated 30.11.1979, Document No.335 of 1995, dated 04.04.1995 and Document No.664 of 1986, dated 04.06.1986. 2. Based on a complaint, CBI registered a case in RC.6(E) of 2010. In the course of investigation, CBI raided the premises of one Srinivasan/A2, Managing Director of M/s.Sri Pamba Sp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »