Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
P. Sadaiyan Vs. The Commissioner, Theni District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Respondent in Na.Ka.No.0007/2015/B2 dated 22.03.2016 and in Na.Ka.No.0007/2015/B2 dated 24.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently permit the petitioner to pay the lease amount of collecting charges in weekly market Cumbum for the year 2016-2017 in six instalment.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.03.2016, whereby, his request for extension of lease was rjected. 2. The Writ Petitioner is the successful bidder for the year 2015-2016 and he did not comply with the conditions stipulated in the auction, namely, the payment of the lease amount, service amount and income tax amount. Though the amount is Rs.22,00,000/- lakh and odd, the petitioner has paid only Rs.19,00,000/- lakh and odd. In the meanwhile, the first year gets expired on 31.03.2016 and the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan and Others Vs. State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dharma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records in C.C.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.) 1. The petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, have come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is a husband, petitioners 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, petitioners 5 and 6 are the sister-in-laws of the defacto complainant/second respondent. The marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was performed on 23.06.2008 and the second respondent has been living separately in her parental home from 26.08.2009. It is further submitted that the first petitioner/husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i) of Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!Manju @ Manjunath and Another State represented by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Common Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment judgment and conviction passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.104/2010 dated 20.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.104 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the app...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chandra Sekar and Another Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.372 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police within a time frme in the interest of justice.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.372 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police within a time frame in the interest of justice. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the investigation in Crime No.372 of 2014 has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in P.R.C.No.78 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Mandhirammal Vs. The Joint Registrar No.I, Sub-Registrar Office, Of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to cancel the document No.894/2013 dated 17.04.2013 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2015 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to delete the name of Shanmugasathu Adigal in the patta and other revenue records and insert the petitioner's name in the patta as well as other revenue records in Survey No.841/1 situate at Ward No.4, Block No.16, in the extent of 22504 Sq.ft Palani Town as per the order of the second respondent dated 09.02.2015 in Na.Ka.No.13013/2014 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Common Order: Both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that the order passed by the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. SBK Shipping Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Eleven years after tsunami wreaked havoc along the coasts of India and other South-East Asian Countries, the moot question raised for consideration before us is as to whether tsunami is an insurable risk or not. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6063 of 2008, the appellant/ insurance company has filed this appeal. 3.1. Let us get down to brass tacks. The respondent company is engaged in the business of providing barges for transporting materials like Iron Ore, etc. from the port to the ships. They owned four steel barges bearing registration Nos.CGE 50, WAI 185, WAI 206 and WAI 217. 3.2. The respondent entered into an insurance contract with the appellant on 5.11.2004, insuring the four barges against damages, etc. Clause 4 of the contract states that the insurance covers loss or damage to the subject matter caused by perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other navigable waters. It also covers loss caused by other a...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Nammalvar Vs. Tamilchandran, The Superintendent of Police, Puduko ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: This contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the Respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court made in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006 dated 24.08.2006.) 1. This contempt petition has been filed for punishing the respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006 dated 24.08.2006. 2. In Crl.O.P(MD).No.5847 of 2006, this Court passed the following order on 24.08.2006: The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai is directed to entrust the investigation in R.No.509/2001 on his file to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai who shall nominate a Deputy Superintendent of Police under his control for investigation of this case. 3. The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai has sent a report dated 26.10.2015, which is as follows: I submit that as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court 1st cited in the re...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in S.C.No.58 of 2011 dated 19.12.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.58 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 of IPC [Two counts] and 309 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 19.12.2012, convicted the appellant under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for each count in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 302 of IPC [Two counts] and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 309 of IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the sole accused has come up with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the pros...
Tag this Judgment!Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited, Rep., by its Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in case No.73 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.) The petitioner operates a coal handling terminal at the third respondent Port, Kamarajar Port Limited. The petitioner was established as a special purpose vehicle by a consortium and was selected to create a facility of common user coal terminal at the third respondent Port on Built, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. 2. The petitioner entered into a licence agreement with the third respondent Port on 14.09.2006, for establishing the common user coal terminal, with an investment of Rs.350 crores in building and commissioning the terminal with a capacity of 8MMTPA. It commenced business operations from 11.03.2011. The promoters of the third respondent Port are the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!K. Natarajan Vs. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the first respondent, relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.15461/2015/P2, dated 31.12.2015, and to quash the same, and to forbear the second respondent from laying down or placing the transmission line and tower over the land of the petitioner, bearing S.F.No.8/3B, admeasuring 0.20.0 hectare (50 cents) in Pappireddipatti Village, Dharmapuri District.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector, dated 31.12.2015, by which, the District Collector rejected the petitioner's objection for the erection of the Transmission Tower by the second respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. When the case was heard on 02.03.2016, the parties reconciled to the fact that there is no prima facie error in the order passed by the District Collector, as it is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »