Chennai Court February 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.
Lakshmanan Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.07.2012 passed in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif at Kallakurichi.) 1. The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 03.07.2012 in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. 2. The Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, while passing the impugned order on 03.07.2012, in I.A.No.361 of 2012 in O.S.No.288 of 2009 (filed by the Petitioner/Defendant), at paragraph 5, had, inter alia, observed that '... In the chief examination of D.W.1, amendment cannot be carried out. Presently, there would be no use in amending the written statement. Though the date of discharge was a necessary fact of the case, since the enquiry was over in regard to the Discharge, the present petition was not to be allow...
Krishnaiah Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
(Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to modify the terms of cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed to be paid to the Chennai District Legal Services Authority and batta of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the PW35 and batta of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the PW38 ordered by the Special Judge/XI Additional Session Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2016 in C.C.No.31 of 2010 on 25.01.2016.) A-5 in C.C.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Cases) aggrieved by the orders of the said judge passed in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2016 in directing him to deposit an exorbitant amount as condition to recall PWs.35 and 38 for his cross-examination has filed this petition. 2. A-5 and certain others are being prosecuted for certain offences before the said Court. Prosecution produced its witnesses. Recording of prosecution evidence was over. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also over. 3. At this juncture, in the T...
Meenakshi Sundaram Vs. H. Radha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the III Additional Family Court at Chennai to dispose of the O.P.No.622 of 2003 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) Justice delayed is justice denied - This is a tragedy, felt stronger and deeper, when justice is delayed in cases of Matrimonial disputes, leaving the parties to the litigation in constant emotional disturbance, relentless worries, paving the way for multiplicity of proceedings in the interregnum. This is the silent cry of the husband, who is allegedly deprived of the conjugal relationship right from the date of marriage. 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the husband, seeking a direction to the III Additional Family Court at Chennai to dispose of the O.P.No.622 of 2003 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The Husband / Revision Petitioner herein originally filed a petition under Section 12 (1) (c) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1...
Randhir Singh Vs. The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and to quash the first respondent's letter dated 09.05.2014 and 26.03.2015, vide letter Ref.No.RO(M)/Corrn/Rejection/DOB/2014/5796 and further direct the first respondent to change the date of birth of petitioner's son Prateek Singh (Roll No.4127247/2009) in their records and issue a fresh certificate reflecting the same.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and to quash the first respondent's letter dated 09.05.2014 and 26.03.2015, vide letter Ref.No.RO(M)/Corrn/Rejection/DOB/2014/5796 and further direct the first respondent to change the date of birth of the petitioner's son Prateek Singh (Roll No.4127247/2009) in their records and issue a fresh certificate reflecting the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he served as an Air Warrior in I...
R. Arumugasamy Managing Director of M/s. R.A. Samy Trading Pvt. Ltd. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(Prayer in W.P. No.27520 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari, calling upon the sale notice dated 15.09.2014 issued by the first respondent informing that e-auction will be conducted on 20.10.2014 and quash the same as against the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Prayer in W.P. No.37216 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the action taken by respondents 1 to 4 in taking possession of the property situate at No.72/2, Kazura Garden, East Coast Road, Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041 on 07.10.2015 is illegal and non est in law, when the creation of security interest is challenged in W.P. No.27520 of 2014.) Common Order: (Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) 1. The facts involved in both writ petitions are intertwined and parties are also same and as such, both writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order. 2. The facts, in brief, leading t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. M/s. Spirit of Life Reviva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal presented to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `B' Bench, Chennai, dated 18.11.2011, in ITA No.1310/MDS/2011.) 1. The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue had submitted that they may be permitted by this court to withdraw the present tax case appeal, in view of the Circular No.21 of 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 10.12.2015, as the tax effect relating to the matter is less than Rs.20,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsels had further submitted that liberty may be granted to the Appellant/Revenue to revive the tax case appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 8 of the circular. 3. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, the present tax case appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn. It is made ...
Prakash Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Namakkal District a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st respondent to secure the body of the petitioner's minor daughter, by name, Brindha, aged about 17 years, before this Court, who is alleged to be under the illegal custody of the respondents 2 and 3.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The petitioner is the father of one Brindha, aged 17 years. Her date of birth is 11.12.1998. According to the petitioner, Brindha (hereinafter referred to as the detenue) was found missing from 20.05.2015 onwards. In this regard, a complaint was made to the 1st respondent on 21.05.2015, upon which, a case was registered in Crime No.200 of 2015 for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. Since, the detenue was not rescued by the 1st respondent police, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition on 07.07.2015. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that the detenue had been kidna...
Sundaram and Others Vs. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
(Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 24.09.2014 passed in W.P. No.9004 of 2013.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is focussed against the order dated 24 September 2014 rendered in W.P. No.9004 of 2013. The writ petitioners, feeling dissatisfied, have preferred the instant appeal. 2. To avoid prolixity, the parties are referred to as per their arraignment in the instant appeal. 3.1 Shorn of the minute details, a vignette of the germane and necessary facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal is that Padianallur Village in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short the Act ?) in January 1951. A ryotwari settlement was introduced in 1953. During such settlement, the lands in S.No.155/2 and 156, which are the petition scheduled lands, were assessed as Government Poramboke/Assessed Wast...
Lakshmi Vs. K. Umamaheswari and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.10.2015 in I.A.No.495 of 2015 in O.S.No.543 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. The petition, supporting affidavit and the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused. 2. The plaintiff in the original suit is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence of this Court over the subordinate Courts. The order sought to be challenged is one passed by the trial Judge on 07.10.2015 in I.A.No.495 of 2015 filed purportedly under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC. But, a consideration of the prayer made therein will make it clear that the petition was filed under a wrong provision of law instead of citing the correct pro...
P. Kamaraj and Others Vs. All India PandT SC/ST Employees Welfare Asso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
(Prayer in Tr.C.M.P.No.776 of 2015: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the appeal in C.M.A.No.104 of 2015 from the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of this Hon'ble Court to be heard along with C.R.P.(PD) No.4038 of 2015. Prayer in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.4038/2015 and 4333/2015: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2015 made in I.A.No.11177 of 2015 in O.S.No.4384 of 2015 passed by the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) Common Order: 1. The learned counsel appearing for C.R.P. (PD) No.4333/2015 submits that the petitioners therein have been advised to withdraw the civil revision petition and hence he would pray for the dismissal of the said civil revision petition as withdrawn. The learned counsel has also made an endorsement in C.R.P.(PD) No.4333/2015 to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »