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.
Rajendran Vs. Sports Development Authority Tamil Nadu, represented by ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.08.2015, made in E.P.No.103 of 2013 in O.S.No.131 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Judge.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.08.2015, made in E.P.No.103 of 2013 in O.S.No.131 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Judge. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.131 of 2006 and respondent in E.P.No.103 of 2013. The respondent filed Suit in O.S.No.131 of 2006 for a judgment and decree directing the petitioner to put the respondent in vacant possession of schedule property and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month till delivery of possession. An ex-parte decree was passed in the Suit on 09.10.2007. The petitioner came to know of the ex-parte decree only on 20.04.2012, when the respondent directed the petitioner to vacate on 20.04.2012 and hand over the possession and meet the police. The petitioner filed ...
G. Dhanalakshmi and Another Vs. The Executive Engineer and Admin. Offi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.4930 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in letter No.A3/M5/15 dated 18.01.2016 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to issue the sale deed to the petitioner to the MIG Plot No.5 at TNHB SMT Scheme, Aundipatti, Theni District without insisting further payment.) Common Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the additional claim along with interest with regard to the earlier allotment to the Housing Board for plots. 2. According to the petitioners, the original demand only at the rate of Rs.186.70 per Sq.ft has already been paid and they also acknowledged the receipt of the same and suddenly, now they come forward with the alleged increase on the ground of Audit objection, which they are not entitled to. Therefore, the peti...
V. Vijayakumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register a case based on the complaint dated 06.09.2015 preferred by the petitioner and to file a final report.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register a case based on the complaint dated 06.09.2015 preferred by the petitioner and to file a final report. 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 the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.633 of 2015. 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 Cou...
Kanagamuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner to construct a compound wall in S.No.260/1A on considering the representation dated 13.02.2016.) 1 .This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner to construct a compound wall in S.No.260/1A on considering the representation dated 13.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint given by one Jayaraman, Sub-Inspector of Police, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2016 against children of the petitioner for preventing Police from discharging their official duties. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit that the property in question is a Government Poramboke property, for which the petitioner is trying to stake his claim. 3. Under such circu...
Maniarasan Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Namak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal District in SC.No.147/2005 dated 18.12.2008.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in SC.No.147/2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Kathirvel. A1 stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and A2 stood charged form the offence u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. By the judgment dated 18.02.2011, the Trial Court acquitted A2 ; but convicted the appellant/A1 herein for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- [a] A2 [Kathirvel], during t...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7103 of 2014 on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 and 2/ defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers and the third respondent / third defendant is his sister. The fourth respondent / fourth defendant is a builder. 2. The suit in O.S.No.7103 of 2014 is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and to declare that the cancellation of settlement deed dated 15.09.2014 in Doc.No.4090 of 2014 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein. 3. The first respondent / first defendant executed a settlement deed dated 18.10.2012 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 settling 3/4th share of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a house property. The settlement deed was sought to be cancelled by the first defendant in the cancellation deed dated 15.09.2014. In these circumstances, the afor...
V. Maharajan and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 13.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 13.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 13.02.2016 has been sent by post to the respondent 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 13.02.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or drop action otherwise. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
M.P.K. Stores, Rep.by its Proprietor A.Sulthan Vs. The Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Common Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33215060466/2010-11 dated 30.11.2015 and quash the same as invalid, illegal and against the Principles of natural justice and pass orders as this Court may deem fit.) Common Order 1. The impugned order is questioned only on the ground that the petitioner is a small time trader and had given detailed objections. The objections have not been considered in proper perspective and hence the petitioner firm has come forward with these writ petitions. 2. In fact, the authority has stated that the petitioner firm sought for clarification. However, he never sought for clarification. Secondly, the authority stated that the statement given before the inspecting officials will bind him. He further contended that in reply, he never stated any rulings and further submitted that the rulings cannot b...
Jaya Pathanjali Fire Works, Rep.by its Proprietor M.Soundarraj, Virudh ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(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 refund or return the advance tax and compounding fees of Rs.2,92,642/- collected from the petitioner during the course of inspection on 22.12.2015 by cheque as follows: 1. Indus-Ind Bank, Sivakasi Cheque No.926621 Dt.22.12.15 Rs.2,07,320.00 2. Indus-Ind Bank, Sivakasi Cheque No.926622 Dt.22.12.15 Rs.85,322.00.) 1. The only ground of the petitioner is that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was coerced to part with the cheque for the alleged sales tax due and when the authorities have no power to collect tax and since assessment is not made, the collection of tax by way of getting a cheque at the time of inspection, is lllegal. 2. Even though during the course of inspection dated 22.12.2015, two cheques were collected from the petitioner and till date, even according to the petitioner, they have not been encashed. In this connecti...
M/s. Shri Sivaraam Spinning Mill, Rep. by its Partner K.R. Gurusami, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the order dated 20.01.2016 passed in M.A.(S.A.).No.4/2016 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai seeking to set aside the same.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioners/Respondents have focussed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 20.01.2016 in M.A.(SA).No.4 of 2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. It comes to be known that the Revision Petitioners/Appellants/ Applicants had filed I.A.No.1833/2015 in S.A.No.97 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore praying for passing of an order of status quo till the set aside application i.e. I.A.No.1457/2015 is heard and disposed of. 3. It is to be noted that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore on 22.12.2015 in I.A.No.1457/2015 opined that the classification of the present account as NPA as on 1.7.2009 was in accordance with the norms issued by the RBI and ultimately di...