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. Govindammal Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint in C.S.R.No.48 of 2016 dated 10.01.2016 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint in C.S.R.No.48 of 2016 dated 10.01.2016 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On a complaint lodged by this petitioner, a petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.48 of 2016 against one Arjunan and Arun Doss. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the said Arjunan and Arun Doss had abused the petitioner in front of her house on 10.01.2016. While so, on the complaint lodged by Arujunan on 01.02.2016, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.341 of 2016 for offences under Secti...
Vijay Television Private Limited Vs. Noise and Grains Entertainment
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Original Application No.127 of 2016 is filed and the Judge's Summons issued under Order 14 Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, read with Section 9(ii) (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent, its men, agents or any one acting through or under it, from directly or indirectly telecasting the 'Nenje Ezhu' event dated 16.01.2016 by itself or through the transfer of the rights, which form the subject matter of the Broadcasting/Telecasting Rights Agreement dated 14.01.2016 entered into between the applicant and the respondent, pending disposal of arbitral proceedings. Application No.1126 of 2016 is filed and the Judge's Summons issued under Order 14 Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, read with Section 9(ii) (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant an interim direction directing the respondent to hand-over to the applicant the hard-disk containing the content pertaining ...
Deva Asir Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.11481 of 2008 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the return of request for the approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post of Waterman in fourth respondent School in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.2902/Aa3/06, dated 07.06.2006 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve of the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman in the fourth respondent School from the date of the appointment, i.e., 16.09.2004. Common Order: The issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to the appointment and approval of non-teaching staff in Aided Minority and Non-Minority Schools governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under...
J. Sivakumar, Chairman, Navrang Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. P.N.T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 09.01.2015 in I.A.No.141/2014 in O.S.No.1548 of 2011.) 1. The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.1548/2011 pending on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner herein. As Chairman of the company by name Navrang Shipping Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner herein filed the above said suit originally on the file of this court (High Court) on its Original Side as C.S.No.1192/2008 for various types of injunctions against the first respondent herein/first defendant in respect of handling of the funds and management of the properties of Navrang Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Navrang Shipping Pvt. Ltd. itself has been shown as the second defendant. One India Trans, a partnership firm figures as the third defendant. Though the suit came to be filed against respondents 1 to 3 ranking them as defendants 1 to 3 re...
A. Pasupathi and Another Vs. K. Durai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the proceedings in O.S.No.97 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam to allow the civil revision petition and strike off the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2003.) 1. When the matter was called today, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a memo stating that the civil revision petition has become infructuous. The memo reads as follows: "The suit filed in O.S.No.97/2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam was already disposed of. As against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.97/2003, the respondents filed appeal in A.S.No.56/2007 on the file of Sub-Court at Kumbakonam. The appeal in A.S.No.56/2007 also was dismissed for default on 5.11.2009. Therefore the above revision filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.97/2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakona...
Anthony Viyagappan and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to forward the complaint dated 19.02.2016 to the 2nd respondent and further direct the 2nd respondent to register a FIR upon the same and take action as per law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to forward the complaint dated 19.02.2016 to the 2nd respondent and further direct the 2nd respondent to register a FIR upon the same and take action as per law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 19.02.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.37 of 2016 dated 04.03.2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that nothing survives for adjudication in...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2012 in MCOP.No.860 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award, made in MCOP.No.860 of 2005, dated 19.04.2012, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, the present appeal is filed. 2. That on 24.10.2004, about 06.00 P.M., while Gnanaselvan, was returning to home, in a Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-48/D- 3660, driving on the extreme left side of Trichy to Chennai main road, near a Petrol bunk Pallividai Bridge, a bus bearing registration No.TN-45/N 1003, belonging to the appellant transport corporation, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle. Gnanaselvan sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to Hospital. Contending that the accident occurred solely due ...
S. Subaitha Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Salem and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's son, namely, S.Syed Sameer, aged about 26 years, before this Court, and to set him at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of one S.Syed Sameer, aged 26 years. On the allegation that, he has been found missing from 07.02.2016 onwards, the petitioner has come up with this petition, seeking to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, viz., S.Syed Sameer, aged about 26 years, before this Court, and to set him at liberty. 2. We have heard, Mr.K.A.Mariappan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State; and we have also perused the records carefully. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case has bee...
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Rep. by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.182 of 2002, dated 10.03.2005, and quash the same.) 1. The writ petitioner is a Transport Corporation fully owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. The second respondent was employed as Conductor by the writ petitioner from 1979 onwards until he was dismissed from service by an order dated 19.05.2001. The dismissal is based on certain allegations and after enquiry. The second respondent took up the matter before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.182 of 2002, since his conciliatory efforts failed. The Labour Court passed an Award dated 10.03.2005 reinstating the workman with continuity of service, but without backwages. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Corporation questioning the said award. 2. The facts in brief are as follows : (i). On 12.09.2000, the second respondent was on duty in ...
Mothi R. Dhandayutham and Another Vs. G.Nagarajan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act of 1980) against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2001 passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal sub-Judge) Trichy, confirming the order and decretal order dated 14.11. 1996 passed in R.C.O.P.No.94 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Trichy.) G. Chockalingam, J. 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions submitted that the petitioners have already taken possession of the premises concerned and he has also made the following endorsement : "The petitioner has taken possession of the petition premises. It may be recorded and the C.R.P may be closed". 2. In view of the above endorsement, this Civil Revision Petition is closed. No costs....