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.
E. Saravanan and Others Vs. E. Pichandi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
1. This Memorandum of Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2015 and made in the appeal in A.S. No. 18 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010 and made in the final decree application in I.A. No. 545 of 2010 in the suit in O.S. No. 278 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 in the suit, whereas, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the sixth defendant. 3. Heard Mr. V. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Notice in respect of R1/plaintiff is dispensed with as he remained absent before the I Appellate Court, in view of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 14 (4) of Civil Procedure Code. 4. For the sake of convenience and also for easy reference, the appellan...
Karuppa Gounder and Others Vs. Chenniappa Gounder (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2005 made in A.S.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2005 made in O.S.No.835 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.) The Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2005 made in A.S.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani. 2. The defendants are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, decreed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property, excepting the house. For convenience, the parties are referred to in their original rank in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs are father and son. The second defendant is one of the daughters of the first plaintiff and her husband and son are defendants 1 and 3 respectively. 4. The suit property consists of agricultural land with...
The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police XIIth Battalion, Manimuthar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Section 114 CPC under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Of CPC against the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by this Court made in CMA(MD).No.569 of 2012.)1. The Review Application is filed to reconsider the order, dated 03.09.2012 passed by this Court, in CMA(MD).No.569 of 2012.2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners made his submissions on the merits of the matter. But, he has not pointed out any error in the order sought to be reviewed. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners re-arguing the matter on merits without pointing out any error on the face of the record. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the learned Government Advocate tries to re argue the matter on merits.4. In view of the fact that no e...
P. Ramu Vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned rules communicated by the 3rd respondent in ROC 561 of 2006 dated 24.07.2006 and quash the same and forbearing I to III respondents from exercising enrolment and consequently direct the 4th respondent to take charge of enrolment of advocates as per section 58(1) of Advocates' Act, 1961.) N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. This case is only a tip of an iceberg, which reveals how full-time salaried employees/staff are working and simultaneously undergoing Law Degree Course elsewhere. The petitioner herein, is a person, who was working as a full-time Government employee, i.e, as a Junior Engineer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Thanjavur, from 17.03.1966 to 31.10.2001 and who was able to obtain a law degree, as if he had undergone the course from 1998-2001, as a regular student in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law, Bangal...
Palanisamy and Another Vs. State represented by The Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioner and their family members under the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioners and their family members under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by one Lakhsmi against these petitioners-, the respondent police conducted an enquiry in CSR No.42 of 2016 and the same has been closed on 26.03.2016. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
V. Alagarsamy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 27.2.2016 for offences u/s.294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 27.2.2016 for offences u/s.294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 27.02.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.9 of 2016 on 20.04.2016 for offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1) and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above stat...
S. Murugeswari Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the case in Crime No.1128 of 2015 from the file of the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent for proper investigation.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the case in Crime No.1128 of 2015 from the file of the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent for proper investigation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that the petitioner's daughter was married to one Kodeeswaran on 22.05.2015, which was a love marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner's daughter committed suicide on 14.12.2015, pursuant to which, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1128 of 2015 on 14.12.2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, it has now been altered into one under Section 306 and 498(A) IPC. The said Kodeeswaran has been arrested and lodged in prison. 4. It is the allegation of the petitioner that th...
Manickam Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Government of Tamil Nadu, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G2/31188/2015 dated 17.03.2016 on the file of the first respondent to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G2/31188/2015 dated 17.03.2016 on the file of the first respondent to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is challenging the interim order passed in an appeal pending before the District Revenue Officer. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though notice has been served on the petitioner, after hearing, the case was posted for next hearing on 04.06.2016. Only during the interregnum period, in the application filed by the appellant, stay has ...
GET Power Limited, Chennai, rep. by its General Manager (F and A), K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the joint lender meeting held on 21.07.2015 of the respondents 1 to 8 herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 8 to accept the recommendation of the Independent Evaluation Committee and approve the Restructuring proposal of the petitioner herein.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the decision taken in the Joint Lenders meeting held on 21.07.2015 in which it was decided that the member banks have decided to evaluate the revival package submitted by the petitioner company and the future course of action will be decided later, interalia authorising the member banks to initiate appropriate recovery measures against the petitioner company for recovery of the amount due and payable by them. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the issues involve...
All India Union Bank Officers and Others Vs. Union of India, rep. by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a (i) Writ of Declaration declaring that the amendment to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act 2007, as also Circular dated 15.2.2008 issued by the 4th respondent Bank are unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void (WP.No.7869 of 2008) (ii) Writ of Declaration declaring that the amendment to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act 2007 and Circular dated 14.1.2008 issued by the 4th respondent Bank are unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void (WP.No.10050 of 2008) (iii) Writ of Declaration declaring that the amendment to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act 2007 and also Circular dated 2.1.2008 issued by the 4th respondent Bank are unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void (WP.No.10051 of 2008) (iv) Writ of Declaration declaring that the amendment to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »