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.
S. Veerachamy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the civil dispute and compel the delivery of the possession of the petitioner's property to the 3rd respondent in Survey NO.967/2 to an extent of 2.080 Acre, Kottayur Village, T.Krishnapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the civil dispute and compel the delivery of the possession of the petitioner's property to the 3rd respondent in Survey NO.967/2 to an extent of 2.080 Acre, Kottayur Village, T.Krishnapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint, given by one Rajagopal against this petitioner, a petition enquiry in CSR No.62 of 2016 was conducted and the same was closed on 11.03.2016 3. Recording the said submission, ...
Abdul Rahman and Others Vs. Vedasandur Vasanthanagar Kudiyiruppor Sang ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to expedite the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.78 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, within a period as fixed by this Court.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed to direct the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.78 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a time frame, that may be fixed by this Court. 2. The revision petitioners are defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent filed O.S.No.78 of 2010, on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed written statement, but, the trial is not yet commenced. Even after filing written statement, the suit has been unnecessarily adjourned without assigning any valid reason and therefore, the petitioner has filed the pre...
Chellammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint on 15.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint on 15.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 15.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.89 of 2016 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) 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 closed....
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. P. Arunachalam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2357 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court, II Judge), Chennai.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court - II Judge) in M.C.O.P.No.2357 of 2013, the appellant Insurance Company has come up with this appeal. 2. In this case, the husband of the deceased is the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident had occurred on 09.11.2012, about 8.45 hours, when the deceased viz. Vijayalakshmi was travelling as a pillion rider in the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 07 BR 1141, driven by her husband/the 5th respondent herein, while on the way from their residence to a Temple, along 7th Main Road, Dhandeswaran Nagar, Velachery, near the junction of 3rd Avenue. It so occurred, when the 5th r...
A. Akthar Hussain and Others Vs. K. Pappireddiyar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer in W.P. No.26633 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in respect of order dated 11.09.2014 made in R.A. (SA) No.43/2014 in S.A. No.118/2013 on the file of the DRT-3, Chennai and quash the same. W.P. No.32208 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to R.A. (SA) 43 of 2014 dated 11.09.2014 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and quash the same.) Common Order: Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Assailing the order dated 11 September 2014 rendered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in R.A. (SA) No.43 of 2014, the auction purchaser of the secured asset has preferred the writ petition being W.P.No.26633 of 2014 and the secured creditor, viz., Indian Bank, has preferred the writ petition being W.P. ...
M. Saraswathi and Others Vs. M. Saravanan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.1.2016 in I.A.No.140 of 2015 in O.S.No.3380 of 2013 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This revision has been preferred as against the order of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 20.1.2016 made in I.A.No.140 of 2015 in O.S.No.3380 of 2013 on the file of the said court. 2. The suit is one for partition. An application was filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and the additional constructions put up after an order of interim injunction came to be passed by the Trial Court. The application was resisted and rejecting the objections raised by the revision petitioners herein, the learned Trial Judge allowed the said application. However, further orders appointing the advocate commissioner is yet to be passed. It is as against the said...
A.P.C. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Balan @ Balakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 13.06.2013 made in I.A.No.1637 of 2012 in P.O.P.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore dated 13.06.2013 made in I.A.No.1637 of 2012 in Pauper O.P.No.111 of 2010 pending on the file of the said Court. 2. The petitioner in the revision is the 11th respondent in the above said pauper O.P. The first respondent in the revision, namely, Balan @ Balakrishnan filed the said pauper O.P seeking permission of the Court to sue as an indigent person, for cancellation of a sale deed dated 04.12.2009 bearing document No.4808 of 2009 registered on the file of Vadavalli Sub Registrar Office, Coimbatore in the name of the revision petitioner / 11th respondent in the pauper O.P. and for cancellation of similar sale deed dated 04.12.200...
The Chennai Port Trust Employees' Cooperative Bank Employees Union rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 24.02.2014 passed in W.P. No.20754 of 2015.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is focussed against the order dated 24 February 2014 passed in W.P. No.20754 of 2013, in and by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. To avoid prolixity, the parties are referred to as per their arraignment in this intra-Court appeal. 3.1 The facts in detail, leading to the filing of this intra-Court appeal are that the appellant is a union of employees of Chennai Port Trust Employees' Cooperative Bank. The members of the appellant union are none other than the employees of the fourth respondent, viz., The Chennai Port Trust Employees' Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Registration Act. The members of the fourth respondent bank are none other than the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Thus, the pay scale of...
Govindan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police Tharamangalam Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the judgment passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.213 of 2012 by judgment dated 27.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.213 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. He stood charged for offences under Sections 364 r/w 34, 302 and 201 IPC. Including the appellant, there were two accused. By judgment dated 27.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused. The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC. So far as the first accused/appellant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default ...
N. Nethaji Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(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 renew the lease period to the petitioner upto the period of 31.12.2017 namely the validity of Drug licence issued by the licensing authority and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to renew the lease period to the petitioner upto the period of 31.12.2017 namely the validity of Drug licence issued by the licensing authority. 2. The only point which has been raised by the petitioner is that the shop was prematurely closed without giving any notice and he has already sought for a alternative place, but, the same has not been considered so far. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that as per the earlier order of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.247 to 249 of 2015 dated 09.04.2015, all other shop...