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.
M/s. Saravana Stores, rep.by its Proprietrix Mrs.Vedha Umayal, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33903961222/2014-2015 dated 29.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 1. The only ground which has been raised by the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that in the reply given by the petitioner, he has specifically sought for personal hearing, such opportunity was not extended by the respondent. Though the petitioner firm has given a detailed reply, the authority concerned has not considered in a proper manner. Had he been given an opportunity of personal hearing, he would have established the fact that the assessment order itself is wrong. To garner support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in (2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad) Vs. SRC Projects Private Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Chennaiand another, to state that a...
Sathyamoorthy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 3rd respondent to alter the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2016 on the basis of the representation dated 10.03.2016 preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to alter the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2016 on the basis of the representation dated 10.03.2016 preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The defacto complainant is the petitioner before this Court. On a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2016 on 27.02.2016 under Sections 447 and 427 IPC against two accused, namely, Shanmugam and Soundarrajan. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his complaint discloses the commission of non bailable offences, but whereas the Police have r...
Muthulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary Home Prohib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.956/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 18.9.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Manikandan s/o.Murugan aged about 23 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son Manikandan s/o.Murugan aged about 23 years the detenu herein at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Manikandan, aged 23 years, son of Murugan , to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.956/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 18.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offender...
M. Subramanian Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Cri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C. No.66 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C. No.66 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the final report, it is seen that this petitioner worked as Gowdown Incharge between 14.05.2008 and 12.11.2009, during which time, he seems to have released 4050 cement bags to Contractors thereby he caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,35,550/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Contractors have not been made as accused and however, Government has withheld the payment payable to the Contractors. Learned counsel ...
Pares N. Patel Vs. State rep by The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents and their officials not to harass the petitioner and his family members unnecessarily against law under the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents and their officials not to harass the petitioner and his family members unnecessarily against law under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one Hanifa, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs....
A. Narayanan Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 as unconstitutional in so far it lays down that ''No shop shall be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within a distance of 50 (fifty) meters and in other areas 100 (hundred) metres from any place of worship or educational institutions'' and proviso in so far as it reads ''provided that the distance restriction shall not apply in areas designated as ''Commercial'' or ''Industrial'' by the Development or Town Planning Authorities set it aside and direct the respondents to ensure that no liquor shop or bar or pub or such other establishment serving liquor is located within 500 metres in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities and 1000 metres in other rural areas from any educational institutions, hospital, place of worship, bus stand and in a residential are...
Tamilarasan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Villupuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 (2 Counts) of IPC. The trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:-(a) The appellant is the husband of P.W.1. The marriage between P.W.1 and the accused was celebrated 9 years prior to 2013. Out ...
Julius Daren Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to take proper action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.11.2015 according to law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to take proper action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.11.2015 according to law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by one Selvam, S/o.Chellasamy, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.483 of 2015 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against this petitioner on 22.10.2015 in respect of a motor vehicle accident that allegedly took place on 22.10.2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a victim and that the said Selvam should have been made accused. In respect of a single incident, there cannot be two FIRs. It is seen that the petitioner has given a representation to the Supre...
Stalin Augustine Joseph @ A.J. Stalin Vs. Sri Saravana Spinning Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 18.01.2016 passed in C.M.P.No.64 of 2015 in C.C.No.882 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupur.) 1. Aggrieved by certain onerous conditions made in CMP.No.64 of 2015 in CC.No.882 of 2015, in its order dated 18.01.2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur, the petitioner has directed this revision. 2. A complaint has been instituted by the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken in CC.No.882 of 2014. Summons has been issued to the revision petitioner under section 204 Cr.P.C. 3. On the hearing date, on his behalf, a learned counsel filed a petition in CMP.No.64/2015 under section 205 Cr.P.C. On 18.01.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur passed the following order: "Heard both sides. Due to his ill-health, this petition is allowed with some conditions that the Advocate...
Murugeswari and Others Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai to dispose of the petition under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2014 in M.C.No. 17 of 2013.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai to dispose of the petition under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2014 in M.C.No. 17 of 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of proceedings, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai to dispose of the petition filed under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2014 in M.C.No. 17 of 2013 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »