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.
The Manager Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai Vs. S. Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.5884 of 2011 dated 16.03.2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal challenging the award made in M.C.O.P.No.5884 of 2011, dated 16.03.2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. On 28.06.2009 at about 4.40 p.m., while the deceased/Ramesh was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-09-AC-7989 and proceeding on the G.S.T.Road, the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, bearing Reg.No.TN-01-N-5783, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind as a result of which the deceased was thrown down and sustained grievous injuries and inspite of treatment died on the same day. A case wa...
S. Sampoorna Ganapathy Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal representations of the petitioner, dated 13.08.2009, 28.12.2009, and 15.11.2010, and to revise the original pension with the weightage of service of five years.) 1. This is a case, where the petitioner, who has voluntarily retired from service while working as the Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School, situated at Madurai City, has sought for the benefit of adding weightage of five years to the service already rendered by him, for the purpose of fixation of higher quantum of pension. 2. The basic facts, which are not in dispute, are, that the petitioner had entered into service as a Teacher and, after having rendered 22 years of service, and while functioning as the Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School, opted to retire voluntarily from the service of the State. It is also not in doubt that he had completed 51 years of a...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Ramaniyam Homes P Ltd., ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'D' Bench, Madras, dated 9.3.2012 in ITA No.1245/Mds/2011.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This Tax Case Appeal is filed by the Revenue, under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961. On 22.8.2014, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount representing the principal loan amount waived by the bank under the one time settlement scheme which the assessee received during the course of its business is not exigible to tax? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have seen that the waiver of principal amount would constitute income falling under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act being the benefit arising for the business?" 2. Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, ...
Sudhakar Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.127/2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the judgment dated 30.08.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.127 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 30.08.2013, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The trial Court had not imposed any sentence for the offence u/s 341 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: [a] The deceased in thi...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aruppukottai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree, dated 29.10.2001, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.843 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Madurai.) 1. All these C.M.As. and C.R.P.(MD) No.1039 of 2006 arise out of compensation awarded due to the accident that took place on 05.10.1998. The issue involved in all these matters is one and the same and therefore, all the cases are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. C.M.A.(MD) No.91 of 2011 is filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1373 of 2000, for enhancement of compensation. 3. The respondent/s who has/have filed claim petitions are referred to as claimant/s, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai is referred to as the first respondent, V.V.R. Transport is referred to as the second respondent and the United India Insurance Company is referred to as the third respondent. 4. The claimants are legal heirs of deceased ...
V. Vinothkumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to register a complaint of the petitioner dated 28.02.2016 and investigate the same in accordance with law and also file the final report.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to register a complaint of the petitioner dated 28.02.2016 and investigate the same in accordance with law and also file the final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 28.02.2016, it essentially appears to be a money dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Accordingly, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to ...
M. Antony Nikulos Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner in vide CSR No.0852 dated 14.3.2016 issued by the 1st respondent within a time frame stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner in vide CSR No.0852 dated 14.3.2016 issued by the 1st respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that on the complaint dated 14.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.424 of 2016 dated 08.02.2016 for offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 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 this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is clos...
Rajesh and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein not to harass the petitioner in name of enquiry without due process of law and pass such further or other orders.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein not to harass the petitioner in name of enquiry without due process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Dr. S. Vijai Vikraman Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to establish the sanctioned University for Indian Medicine at Chettikulam, Tirunelveli and further establish all the necessary infrastructure for the 4th respondent College as required under the regulation framed by the 7th respondent.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. A Student of 1st year of the Post Graduate Course in the Government Siddha Medical College and Hospital, Palayamkottai, has come up with the above writ petition in public interest, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to establish the proposed University for Indian Medicine in Chettikulam, Tirunelveli and also to provide all infrastructure for the 4th respondent college. 2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing...
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government, Finance (BPE) Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P. No.34530 of 2013 dated 16.02.2015. 2. Facts of the case are that the 1st respondent is an association of pensioners, who were absorbed from the Department of Industries and Commerce to the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., (TANSI). They were paid with DCRG and commuted pension amount. In G.O.Ms. No.509, Finance (BPE) Department dated 25.05.1997, the Government have ordered that restoration of 1/3rd portion of the commuted pension after 15 years from the date of commutation, be extended to the State Government employees, who have commuted their pension, while getting absorbed permanently in the State Public Sector Undertakings/Boards, Local Bodies, Universities Cooperative Institutions, Central Public Sector Undertakings, Central Autonomous Bodies etc. According to the 1st respondent, the Secretary to Government, Finance (BPE) Department, Chennai, 1st appellant herein, paid 1/3rd pension from 04.05.1991...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »