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.
P. Petchimuthu Vs. Karunakaran and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the complaint case of Petitioner in S.C.No.191 of 2009 from the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi to the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli for trial.) 1. This petition has been filedto transfer the complaint case of Petitioner in S.C.No.191 of 2009 from the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi to the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli for trial. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. On the complaint filed by the petitioner, a case in C.C.No.3 of 2007 is pending on the file of Human Rights (Principal District and Sessions Court, Tuticorin) against the respondents herein. While so, the petitioner gave a representation dated 08.10.2015 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, making silly allegations against the Presiding Officer. The Registry of this Court issued a communication dated 03.11.2015 to...
V.S. Sridharan Vs. Baby Mehala
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal Order dated 24.2.2016 made in I.A. No.1260 of 2014 in O.S. No.714 of 2001 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal Order dated 24.2.2016 passed in LA. No.1260 of 2014 in O,S, No.714 of 2001 by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli . 2. The Petitioner is the Defendant/Judgment-debtor and the Respondent is the Plaintiff/Decree-holder in the Suit in OS No.714 of 2001. The Respondent filed a Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli. The Suit was decreed ex parte for non-filing of Written Statement on 6.8.2003. As per Decree, the Petitioner has to receive the balance Sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed. Three months time was granted. The Respondent deposited the ...
Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, rep.by its Chief Manage ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.Nos.130 and 172 of 2015 is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27.3.2015 made in Company Application No.1173 of 2013 in C.A.No.759 of 2011 in C.P.No.65 of 2002 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.131 of 2015 is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27.3.2015 made in Company Application No.1174 of 2013 in C.A.No.759 of 2011 in C.P.No.65 of 2002 on the file of this Court. Cross Objection No.10 of 2016is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.3.2015 made in C.A.NO.1174 of 2013 in C.P.No.65 of 2002 on the file of this Court. Cross Objection No.11 of 2016is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.3.2015 made in C.A.NO.1173 of 2013 in C.P.No.65 of 2002 on the file of this Court.) M.M. Su...
R. Thirumalairaj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by The Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in connection with the orders passed by him , in his proceedings Ni.M.No.28582/02 (Adhi.8) dated 11.03.2006, quashing the same and consequently to direct the respondents to take note of the community of the petitioner's father, for deciding his community.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner claims that he has been issued with a Community Certificate, by the Personal Assistant to the Collector (P.D.), Madurai, dated 28.02.1975, certifying that he belongs to "Kattunayakkan" Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. On the strength of the above said certificate, he got appointment in Southern Railways. The Employer of the petitioner sent the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai District, to verify its genuineness. Upon enquiry, the District Le...
R. Pandiammal and Others Vs. A. Sheik Jaffar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree dated 18.11.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1778 to 1780 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) Common Judgment: R. Sudhakar, J. 1. While the claimants filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.789 to 790 of 2015, the National Insurance Company Limited filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1827 to 1829 of 2015, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 18.11.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1778 to 1780 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The Motor Accident which occurred on 16.01.2013 at 4.15 hours at Kundampatti - Kalkottai Road near Nachiarpuram, Kannimar Temple resulted in three injury cases. As per the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal, it is stated that while the claimants and others were proceeding in the auto rickshaw bearing Regi...
D. Murugaiah Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. A retired I.A. and A.S. Officer, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash R.O.C.No.C3/26037/15, dated 02.03.2016 and consequently, prayed for a direction to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District to demolish the construction made in Survey No.174/9, Kottaram West Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, by respondents 3 to 5. He has also prayed for a direction to the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, respectively of Kanyakumari District, to remove the construction in Survey No.174/9, within a time frame. 2. According to the petitioner, he is native of Achankulam. Now, he is settled in Chennai and often, visit his native place, for his personal work. There is a temple called, ?Arulmighu Umayamman Temple? in Achankukalm. It is in Survey No.174/7. The village consists of Scheduled Caste Hindus, Nadars and Christians. There is a vacant place in Survey No.174/9, situated behind the said temple. East of that property, after the road, lies a CSI...
T. Manthiramoorthy and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: W.A.No.804 of 2008 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 22.01.2008 in W.P.No.26885 of 2007 on the file of this Court. W.A.No.805 of 2008 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 22.01.2008 in W.P.No.27555 of 2007 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. Appellants claims to be Technical Assistants, all selected through the Employment Exchange and deployed with the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. The appellants are aggrieved by the manner of promotion to the post of the Assistant Engineer in the first respondent. They seek quashing of the resolution of the Selection Committee of the first respondent, being the second respondent, which met on 06.07.2007 and the consequential order issued by the said Selection Committee as Proceedings No.1 dated 06.07.2007 to the extent they relate to the selection of 67 departmental candidates for appointment as Assistant Engineers on tr...
Deepakraj and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to C.C.No.574 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.574 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.124 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC on the file of the All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai, has been registered against the petitioners/accused, which was subsequently transferred to the file of All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, Madurai and re-numbered as Crime No.7 of 2014 under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet, which was duly taken on file in C.C.No.574 of 2014 by the learned Additional...
AL. Alagappan @ Keethivasan Vs. K. Ramasamy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the Order dated 3.2.2016 passed in I.A. No.321 of 2015 in O.S. No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, allow the Civil Revision Petition dismissing the Plaint as sought for with cost throughout.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to revise the Order dated 3.2.2016 passed in I.A. No.321 of 2015 in O.S. No.90 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and allow the Civil Revision Petition and dismiss the Plaint as sought for with Cost throughout. 2. The Petitioner is the First Defendant. The First Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Second Respondent is the Second Defendant in the Suit. The First Respondent filed a Suit in O.S. No.90 of 2015 for declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 29.12.2010 executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Second Respondent as null and void and ...
Commisioner of Income tax Vs. M. Hemanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 11.9.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1286/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This tax case appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue has come up with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on a dead person without noting that the Commissioner of Income Tax has impleaded the legal heirs of the assessee? and (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the crucial fact that the notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was served on the legal representative and the opportunity of bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »