Chennai Court April 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.
Narayanan Vs. Parthiban and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 26.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.246 of 2010 in O.S.No.312 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.246 of 2010 in O.S.No.312 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur. 2.The respondents 1 and 2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.312 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur, against the respondents 3 to 15 herein for partition and separate possession of their alleged 27/240 shares in the suit properties. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the respondents / plaintiffs has contended in the suit that the suit properties are the joint family properties as the same belonged to Karumalai and Thandayee, that the first respondent herein is the grandson of the said Karumalai through one of his sons Murugesan, the 10th...
R. Subramaniam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Deputy Superint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.01.2016 made in Crl.MP.No.1814 of 2015 in Cr.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge under TANPID Act, Chennai.) 1. The revision petitioner/A4 has preferred the instant criminal revision, as an agreed person as against the order dated 06.01.2016 made in Crl.MP.No.1814 of 2015 in Cr.No.5 of 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge under TANPID Act, Chennai. 2. The Trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 in Crl.MP.No.1814 of 2015 in Cr.No.5 of 2013 at Paragraph 14 had observed the following:- 14. In the result, this petition is allowed and the case property is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions. 1. The petitioner Mr.R.Subramanian, shall personally appear in the Court and execute a bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with two sureties each for like sum; 2. The photo copy of the Registration Certificate shal...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. P.V. Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core issue raised in this Tax Case (Appeal) is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the respondent/assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. 2. Though it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this appeal has already been decided by this Court in the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs Asst. CIT[2012) 340 ITR 477], it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that as against the decision rendered by this Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills, the Revenue has preferred appeals before the Supreme Court and the same are pending. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. In the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spin...
N. Balathandapani Vs. District Social Welfare Officer/ Appellate Tribu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the orders made in Appeal No.1/2013 dated 18.2.2014 passed by the 1st respondent in Order No. Moo. Mu.6455/2012/A1 dated 23.01.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to initiate the action against 3rd and 4th respondents and to protect the petitioner's property from the hands of 3rd and 4th respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property situated at D.No.3/C, 106-A, Cheran Nagar, Mettpulayam Road, Coimbatore-641 029 having purchased the same for a valid consideration of Rs.2,17,000/- from one Mr. K.M. Jagadeesan by a sale deed dated 02.01.1996. His native town is Coimbatore, however, at present he is residing in Chennai along with his wife, who retired as a teacher, in a rented house for Rs.6000/- even though he has his own house which he purchase...
Subbammal Vs. Saradammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2016
Dr. S. Vimala, J. 1. Who is the wife?, Is it the first plaintiff Saradambal or the first defendant Subbammal?, out of both, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu (who was employed under the second defendant) entitled to receive the terminal benefits payable on account of death of Kesavalu, is the issue raised in this case. 2. The suit had been filed seeking the relief of a) declaration that the plaintiffs, i.e. first plaintiff is the wife and Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased V. Kesavalu, are the legal heirs of the deceased and b) for consequential injunction. 2a. The suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendants filed the appeal. The appeal was allowed to be dismissed for default. Later, restoration application was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the restoration application in C.M.A. No.868 of 2016. This Court thought it fit to decide the issue regarding restoration, subject to the merit...
K. Govindaraj Vs. K. Kumar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and executable order dated 12.09.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Kumbakonam.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.09.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Kumbakonam. 2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 and he claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (subsequently by amendment, the same was enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs) for injury sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 19.08.2004. 3. According to the appellant, he was travelling in a Hero Honda Motorcycle as a pillion rider. One Mohan was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. In order to avoid the lorry coming in the opposite direction, the said Mohan suddenly turned his vehicle at high speed. Due to that, the appe...
Ganesan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Theni District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely Adalpadal scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016 at night in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Samayapura Mariamman Thirukovil, at 17th Ward, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2016.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely Adalpadal scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016 at night in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Samayapura Mariamman Thirukovil, at 17th Ward, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to perform the cultural event in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulm...
Sub Continental Equities Limited, Rep. by its Power Agent, Siddharth P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer in C.R.P. No. 427 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed in I.A. No. 53 of 2016 in O.S. No. 36 of 2016 by the learned Sub Judge, Vellore. C.R.P. No. 428 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 36 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore.) N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The Courts are here to render justice. The finality of proceedings, at the earliest, is a necessity and multiplicity of the proceedings should be avoided. Whether the Courts have control over the proceedings or the parties are controlling the proceedings is an aspect to be gone into. The way in which a dispute comes to the Court and gets multiplied into many proceedings at various stages of the judicial hierarchy would speak volumes about the role of various stakeholders of the justice delivery system. The litigants, the lawyers and the Courts are part and parcel of justice delivery system. Without the assistance of one stakeholder, the ju...
V. Jeyabalan Vs. The Sub-Collector, Sivakasi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus to direct the respondent to disburse the balance compensation together with the statutory benefits due to the petitioners based pursuant to the order in LAOP.Nos.173 of 1987, LAOP.Nos.169 of 1987, LAOP.Nos.177 of 1987 and LAOP.Nos.178 of 1987 dated 02.09.2002 on the file of the Subcourt, Srivilliputtur, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The unfortunate petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions whose lands have been acquired by the respondent wayback in the year 1985 and reference was made in regard to the compensation and thereafter, an appeal was preferred and the matter was remanded and after remand, a final order was passed vide order dated 02.09.2002 fixing the quantum of compensation. Even though the quantum of compensation was fixed as early as 2002, till date, it has not been paid to them. Therefore, some of them have filed execution petitions. 2. ...
Manavalan and Another Vs. The 2nd Class Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)6778/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the proceedings M.C.No.(A3) 26/2016 dated 08.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)6779/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the proceedings M.C.No.(A3) 24/2016 dated 08.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. It is seen that these petitions have been filed, challenging the show cause notices issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C., asking the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent on 14.03.2016 for enquiry. 2. Since these are only show cause notices, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings of the 1st respondent. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent with an Advocate of their choice. With the above observation, these Criminal Original Pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »