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.
Kalaivani @ Devasena Vs. Ramu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.04.2005, in I.A.No.78 of 2011 in O.S.No.13 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Perambalur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 13.04.2005 made in I.A.No.78 of 2011 in O.S.No.13 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Perambalur. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2004 before the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Principal District Court, Perambalur. According to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, the suit properties is a joint family property and therefore filed a suit for partition and separate possession. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2004 praying for partition and separate possession declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in 'A' schedule properties and 5/18...
Raja Mohammed and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai ...
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 file final report in Crime No.661 of 2015 on the fie of the 2nd respondent within a period fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to file final report in Crime No.661 of 2015 on the fie of the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation has been completed and a closure report has already been filed on 04.10.2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai. A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
M/s. P and C Constructions (P) Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Mun ...
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 relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.JnS2/AGFN/2nd VWSS/2011 dated 21.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.JnS2/AGFN/2nd VWSS/2011 dated 21.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. After some elaborate arguments, the petitioner would point out that even as per the counter filed by the second respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode, the actual amount of Excise duty exemption claimed in respect of supply of pipes would come only to the tune of Rs.63,41,294/-. The...
J. Muthukrishnan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice in Letter No. R5/1097/97/Relief GO 115/2013 dated 05.07.2013 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to issue sale deed to the petitioner for his allotted ready built house No. MIG B-27 TNHB Colony Sankaraperi Thoothukudi on payment of difference in land cost without any interest within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed....
R. Antony Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
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 an FIR forthwith based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 01.02.2014 and pass such further or other suitable order as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR forthwith based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 01.02.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint dated 01.02.2014 given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.54 of 2014 and since the petitioner did not cooperate in the enquiry, the same is kept pending. Thereafter, the petitioner, as a follow up, has sent another complaint dated 26.02.2016 by post. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry pending in CSR No.54 of 2014...
Balasubbulakshmi Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 5.2.2016 and investigate the same accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 5.2.2016 and investigate the same accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 05.02.2016 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 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 05.02.2016. 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 offenc...
Kalidas Vs. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District and Another
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 herein to conduct the enquiry and file a final report in respect of the Crime No. 145/2013 registered on 28.06.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent.) 1.This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein to conduct the enquiry and file a final report in respect of the Crime No. 145/2013 registered on 28.06.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the investigation has been completed and a charge sheet has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul on 02.04.2016 itself. 3. In view of the above submission, this petition is closed....
N.A.K. Gopalakrishna Raja Vs. The District Collector, Theni District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating with the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.35611/2011/C4, dated 25.01.2016 in connection with the appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.35611/2011/C4, dt.07.12.2015 filed by the 3rd respondent and quash the proceeding as illegal and without jurisdiction.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the owner of the land in Survey No.533 in Theni Allinagaram. He has let out the vacant site to the third respondent for lease and the lease period was over as early as on 15.03.1992. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, the third respondent has not vacated the premises but he is doing business, illegally by getting No Objection Certificate from the second respondent for issuance of licence. Only on the basis of the No Objection Certificate issued by the second respondent, without any valid right he has ...
Radha Vs. Ramamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order in I.A.No.40 of 2015 in I.P.3 of 2011 on the file Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur dated 25.11.2015.) 1. The debtor against whom a creditor's petition came to be filed under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 in I.P.No.3 of 2011 on the file of Principal District and Session Judge, Ariyalur for adjudging him as insolvement, is the petitioner in the present revision. 2. Contending that no act of insolvency was averred in the creditor's petition and the creditor's petition was not filed within three months from the date of alleged commission of the Act of insolvency, the debtor filed an application in I.A.No.40 of 2015 in the above said I.P.No.3 of 2011 for the rejection of the debtor's petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. The learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order dated 25.11.20...
Kannayiram Vs. Thalaivar, Thoppampatti Ooratchi Mandram and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 21.04.2010 made in I.A.No.320 of 2010 in O.S.No. 47 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 21.04.2010 passed in I.A.No. 320 of 2010 in O.S.No. 47 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur seeking for relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.07.1992. At the time of filing of the suit, the date of the sale deed was wrongly mentioned as 11.07.1992 instead of 11.07.1997 in the plaint. Since, there is a typographical error in the plaint, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 320 of 2010 seeking for amendment in the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »