Chennai Court March 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. Shiekh Mohideen Vs. The Commissioner, Kodaikkanal Municipality, Din ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice made in Na.Ka.No.4413/2014/A4 dated 15.03.2016 as well as the notice made in Na.Ka.No.4413/2014/A3 dated 17.3.2016 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revise the lease amount in respect of collection of parking fee for Four wheelers at Bruton compound Kodaikkanal Dindigul District within the time stipulated by this Court to enable the petitioner to pay the same towards 2016-2017 lease period.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition as such is not maintainable at this stage for the simple reason that though the petitioner is a successful bidder, he is in arrears of huge amount right from the very beginning of awarding the contract to him. According to the respondent, the arrears amount is worked out to Rs.4,77,520/- as on date and therefore, he is not enti...
Appu @ Jaisankar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, in S.C.No.33 of 2008.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.33 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 08.08.2012, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 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 in this case was one Mrs.Pamavathy. She was residing at No.118, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Annai Sathya Nagar, Ambattur. P.W.3 is her four year old child. P.W.1 wa...
Sebastain Thevar and Others Vs. Antonysamy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2014 passed in I.A.No.432 of 2014 in O.S.No.515 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2014, passed in I.A.No.432 of 2014 in O.S.No.515 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1, 3 and 4. The respondents are plaintiffs. 3. The respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.515 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi, Thirunelveli District for partition. The petitioners entered appearance and filed written statement. The suit was posted for trial on 07.12.2013. The petitioners did not appear on that day. Therefore, they were set ex parte and the matter was posted to 11.12.2013 and on 13.12.2013 ex parte order was passed. On 18.12.2013, exparte p...
S.G. Subbaraja Vs. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO-Tirunelveli an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to keep the space between the Sankarankovil Rajapalayam High Road and buildings with D.No.93 and the space between the same road and building with D.No.203 by removing any obstruction and to keep and monitor the said space as vacant in Sankarankovil Municipality limit in Tirunelveli District and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to keep the space between the Sankarankovil Rajapalayam High Road and buildings with D.No.93 and the space between the same road and building with D.No.203 by removing any obstruction and to keep and monitor the said space as vacant in Sankarankovil Municipality limit in Tirunelveli District. 2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, earlier he filed a suit in O.S.No....
The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2014 in MCOP.No.30 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court for Forest Offence Cases, Nagercoil.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award made in MCOP.No.30 of 2009 dated 24.06.2014, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court for Forest Offence Cases, Nagercoil, the appellant has filed this appeal. As the challenge is limited only to quantum of compensation of Rs.14,71,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased, there is no need to advert to the finding of the Tribunal, fixing negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle, insured with the appellant company and the consequential liability. 2. Though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal, assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant confined ...
P. Srinivasan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies (Hous ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for all the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.1062/2015/Vu dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies (Housing), Chengalpattu Region, the first respondent herein, and the consequential summons dated 16.03.2016 issued by the Enquiry Officer cum Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Tambaram Range-2, the third respondent herein and to quash the same.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 16.3.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent calling upon the petitioner to participate in an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, (in short, ''the Act''). This notice was issued pursuant to a communication issued by the 1st respondent dated 15.12.2015, which is impugned in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Section 81 of the Act submitted that the Regis...
Vijayendran Vs. SajjanSingh. R.Chavan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Contemnor/ first respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.18361 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015.) 1. This petition is filed to punish the contemner, the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.18361 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015. 2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/contemnor that the order passed by this Court in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.18361 of 2015, dated 02.12.2015, has been complied with. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/contemnor this contempt petition is closed. No costs....
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Thirupattur Vs. Dayalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Thirupattur made in L.A.A.No.16 of 2004 dated 10.2.2005. The above appeal was filed beyond limitation. A condone delay petition was filed in M.P.1 of 2007 to condone the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal. Though it is stated that the delay was condoned, in the bundle circulated to us, the order copy is not found. However, contrary to the standing orders, the matter was posted for admission before a learned Single Judge and the same was admitted on 9.8.2010. The learned Judge, who admitted the matter, also framed four substantial questions of law for admitting the matter. The learned Special Government Pleader apparently filed a second appeal under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and not under Section 100, CPC. Under Section 13, the admission was not subject to the availability of substantial questions of law for determination by this Court. 2. ...
M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Pune Road Akurdi Vs. M/s. TVS Motor Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Common Order M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The defendant is the applicant in both applications and these applications have been taken out to eschew certain documents marked as exhibits in the suit, on the ground that the said exhibits are either inadmissible and/or in respect of which, the mode of proof and/or relevancy is under serious doubt and in spite of objections being raised at the time of marking the documents, the same have been received in evidence as exhibits. 2. Since the points urged by the applicant/defendant in these applications, are one and the same, the present applications are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendant in C.S.No.979 of 2007. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these applications, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:- 3(i) The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.979 of 2007 against the applicant herein praying for a judgment and decree to declare t...
S. Singaravelu and Others Vs. S. Natarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 06.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.117 of 2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Karaikal.) 1. Defendants 3 to 6 and 8 to 14 in O.S.No.68 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Karaikal are the petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The second defendant in the said suit is the first respondent in the revision. The seventh defendant in the said suit is the fourth respondent in the revision. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the Original Suit are the respondents 2 and 3 in the Civil Revision Petition. 2. The second defendant, who is the first respondent in the present revision, filed an application I.A.No.117 of 2015 in the above said suit O.S.No.68 of 2011 under Order VIII Rule 9 r/w. Section 94 (e) and 151 CPC seeking permission to file a separate written statement with a counter...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »