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.
A. Rajiv Gandhi Vs. State by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Appeal filed u/s.374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment in SC.No.425/2007 dated 10.02.2012 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram). S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in SC.No.425/2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore. Including the appellant, there were three accused. They stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and the Trial Court, acquitted A2 and A3 from the above charge and convicted the appellant alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- [a] The deceased Kaliyamoorthy was a resident of Thambikunallanpattinam. A1 and A2 are brothers and A3 is the maternal uncle's son of A1 and A2. ...
Dr. K. Natarajan and Others Vs. K. Krishna Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.5235 of 2015 on the file XIII Asst. Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for striking off the plaint in O.S. No. 5235 of 2015 pending on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on the premise that the jurisdiction of the Court was barred by Section 10GB of the old Companies Act, 1956 and that the new Companies Act, 2013 enacted, which has repealed the Companies Act, 1956 also contains a provision under Section 430 excluding such jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such company matters. 2. The reliance made by the petitioner under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been pre-empted by the respondent/plaintiff by making an averment that the said Section had not come into force as it was not notified till the filing of the suit. However, the learned cou...
E. Sankaranarayanan and Others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to issue Community Certificate to the petitioners 2 and 3 that they belong to "Kurichchan (ST) Community" as per the application of the petitioner, dated 19.08.2015 based upon the Community Certificate already issued to the first petitioner, which was verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in proceedings No.5364/CVIII/2011, dated 13.02.2015.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to issue Community Certificate to the petitioners 2 and 3 that they belong to "Kurichchan (ST) Community" as per the application of the petitioner, dated 19.08.2015, based upon the Community Certificate already issued to the first petitioner, which was verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in proceedings No.5364/CVIII/2011, dated 13.02.2015. 2. Heard both sides. 3. According t...
M/s. Sakthi Murugan Polymers, Tiruppur represented by its Partner, K.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.10.2015 made in Application S.R.No.4037 of 2015 passed by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.10.2015 made in Application S.R.No.4037 of 2015 passed by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order of the First Respondent/Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, dated 12.10.2015 in Application S.R.No.4037 of 2015 in declining to number the SARFAESI petition/application, is an arbitrary, capricious one and without application of mind, because of the simple reason that the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2015 (4) CTC 809 (SC) (Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India) has held that the 'Debts Recovery Appellate ...
M/s. Sathrasala Venkatachalam Chetty Estate, Rep. by its Executor Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application, dated 12.10.2015 under Section 79(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act for removal of lock and seal affixed on the petitioner's building on 21.12.2014 at No.166-169, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079, with respect to the sanctioned portion of ground and first floor and re-seal the second floor pending determination of regularisation of the same by the first respondent on the Appeal under Section 79 of the Town and Country Plannig Act, 1971, filed by the petitioner on 10.09.2015.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court by directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application, dated 12.10.2015 under Section 79(5) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning...
P. Selvaraju and Others Vs. The Deputy General Manager, (Contracts Cel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to reject the tenders of the respondents 4 to 10 for road Transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products - MS/HSD/Branded Fuels in Tender No.:RCC/SR/TNSO/PT-39/15-16 dated 16.12.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent since they have produced bogus CCOE-licence from the 2nd respondent as per the representation of the petitioner dated 25.1.2015. 1. The petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for a mandamus upon the 1st respondent to reject the tenders of the respondents 4 to 10 for road Transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products - MS/HSD/Branded Fuels in Tender No.:RCC/SR/TNSO/PT-39/15-16, dated 16.12.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent since they have produced bogus CCOE-licence from the 2nd respondent as per the representation of the petitioners dated 25.1.2015. 2. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned co...
P.S.M. Mubarak Nisha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to produce the husband of the petitioner, Jaffer s/o. Abdul Kareem aged 67 years residing at 36/100, 3rd Street, Gandhi Nagar, Sevilimedu village, Kanchipuram Taluk before this Court.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The petitioner appeared before this Court. She informed this Court that she has got information that her husband is living with another woman. Therefore, she does not want to proceed with the matter. She made an endorsement to that effect. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has got no instructions from the petitioner. The same is recorded. In view of the same, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed....
Red Giant Movies, Rep. by its Manager and S. Saravanamuthu Vs. The Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.11 dated 14.1.2016 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to grant exemption from Entertainment Tax for full length Tamil Movie titled TAMILfrom the date of release i.e. 14.1.2016 and consequently refund the tax.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No.11, dated 14.01.2016 and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant exemption from Entertainment Tax for full length Tamil Movie titled TAMILfrom the date of release i.e. 14.1.2016 and consequently refund the tax. 2. According to the petitioner, they produced a full length Tamil movie titled TAMILat the cost of several crores of rupees and the movie was released on 14.01.2016. The said film was issued a Ucertificate by the Centr...
The Management of Esab India Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, I Additio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the Award dated 04.01.2013, passed in I.D.No.289 of 2009 by the first respondent, I Additional Labour court, Chennai.) 1. The petitioner is the Management and the second respondent is the Workman. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.289 of 2009, dated 04.01.2013. 2. The Workman was engaged as a Machine Operator in the Ambattur plant of the petitioner company. The Workman joined in the petitioner company during 1991 and during May 2008, he was working in Batching Plant and according to the Management due to business reasons, the number of employees in the Batching Plant was reduced to two and the respondent Workman was found to be surplus and he was transferred to the Packing Section. The Workman is said to have accepted the order of transfer and commenced working in the Pack...
A. Devarajan Vs. A. Kamaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, dated 04.12.2013 made in I.A.No.674 of 2013 in O.S.No.290 of 2005.) 1. The plaintiff in the original suit is the petitioner in the revision petition. The respondents 1 and 2 are the brothers of the petitioner. The third respondent (third defendant) is the purchaser of a portion of third and fourth items of the suit properties from the respondents 1 and 2. The suit was filed for declaration of title in respect of plaint items 1 and 2 and for partition in respect of items 3 to 5 of the suit properties. The claim of the revision petitioner/plaintiff has been made on the basis that item Nos.1 and 2 and a share in item No.5 belonged to his mother, who left a Will dated 05.06.2001, bequeathing all her properties to the petitioner/plaintiff and that the rest of the properties, where the common properties in which the...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »