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.
Apollo Hospitals and Enterprises Ltd., Chennai Vs. Mahesh Apollo Pharm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The plaintiff would aver as follows: 1.1. The plaintiff is a multi-specialty medical service provider across the spectrum of medical and health care services and facilities right from diagnostic clinics to general hospitals, multi-specialty hospitals, cancer hospitals, training institutes/colleges, pharmacies etc., and is a pioneer in the field of treatment of various ailments. It is further averred that the trademarks "Apollo" and "Apollo Pharmacy" are registered in favour of the plaintiff, both individually and jointly with other marks, exclusively in favour of the plaintiff and no other person is entitled to use the registered trademark "Apollo" and "Apollo Pharmacy" or visually, phonetically, structurally or deceptively similar to the registered trademarks, in connection with medical services and goods including pharmaceutical goods and services and the dispensation thereof, whether directly or with any prefix or suffix or in combination with any other cha...
Muthiah Pillai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.12.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.12.2015. 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 dated 29.12.2015, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 09.03.2016. A copy of the Closure Report has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
V.C.P.V. Thavidan @ Karuppanan Vs. State represented by The Commission ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City / 2nd Respondent herein to register the Petitioner's complaint dated 04.03.2016 as an FIR within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City / 2nd Respondent herein to register the Petitioner's complaint dated 04.03.2016 as an FIR within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the complaint dated 04.03.2016 has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the Inspector of Police, D-1, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai along with this order an...
A. Pirama Nayagam @ Bramma Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 27.01.2016 has been sent by post to the 1st 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 27.01.2016. 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 offence or drop action otherwise. With the above direction, this Criminal Original...
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. P. Micheal Britto @ Br ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.2368 of 1999, dated 21.10.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court (P.C.R.), Tiruchirapalli.) 1. Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court (P.C.R.) Tiruchirapalli made in M.C.O.P.No.2368 of 1999, dated 21.10.2005, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2368 of 1999. The first respondent is the claimant. The second respondent is the owner of the lorry. The third respondent is the owner of the Auto. The fourth respondent is the Insurance Company of the Auto. 3. Facts of the Case:- The first respondent filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by him in the accident that took place on 01.08.1999. According to the first respondent, he was travelling in an Au...
A. Bama @ Sathiya Bama Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanyakumari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
(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 relating to the impugned proceedings in A3/1623/2014 dated 28.07.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to restore the patta in RTR 380/2014 dated 09.04.2014 stands in the name of the petitioner and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in A3/1623/2014 dated 28.07.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to restore the patta in RTR 380/2014 dated 09.04.2014 stands in the name of the petitioner. 2. The only point which has been raised by the petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to directly set aside the order of the Ta...
Dr. Mrs. Aruna Basu Sarcar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
(Prayer: W.P.No.6956 of 2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai made in O.A.No.1306/2015 dated 06.01.2016 and quash so far as the last limb of prayer which is not granted to the petitioner and direct the respondents to treat the period of the petitioner's leave after exhaustion of medical leave as compulsory wait until petitioner posted to regular Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. W.P.No.11920 of 2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1306 of 2015 dated 06.01.2016 and to quash the same.) Common Order: Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Heard learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner/Applicant as well as learned Additional Advocate Gene...
Anbu Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Tindivanam, in S.C.No.211 of 2005.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the second accused in Sessions Case No.211 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Dindivanam. Including the appellant, there were a total number of six accused. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against the accused as detailed below: ad>Sl.No.Charges (Section of law)accused1.U/s.120-B of the Indian Penal CodeA1 to A62.U/s.452 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 and A53.U/s.395 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 to A54.U/s.396 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 to A55.U/s.397 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 and A36.U/s.402 of the Indian Penal CodeA6 By judgment dated 24.7.2006, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 4 alone and sentenced them as follows: ad>Sl.No.Rank of accusedConvictionsentence1.A1 t...
Naganathan and Another Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magaistrate No.II, Ramnad and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magaistrate No.II, Ramnad and quash the same. 2. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by Nesa Kumar/2nd respondent, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.281 of 2014 on 10.11.2014 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against Naganathan and Kaleeswaran and after completing the investigation, also filed a final report in C.C.No.102 of 2015 for the said offences, challenging which the petitioner, who are accused, are before this Court. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.11.2014, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant got admitted in the Governme...
R. Thirukumar Vs. The State Rep.by The District Collector, Virudhungar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner challenges the inclusion of the names in the patta who are arrayed as respondents 4 to 25. First of all, the petitioner shall apply the certified copy of the same to establish his case, to state that the patta was transferred to the respondents 4 to 25. Thereafter only if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, to get appropriate relief. 2. Hence, the petitioner is directed to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if he so desires. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »