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.
M/s. Innovaa Inkjet Technology, Rep.by its Proprietor S. Saravanan Vs. ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in CST 1079517/2013-14 dated 27.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and clear violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass an order afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of issuing notice and personal hearing 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 in CST 1079517/2013-14 dated 27.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and clear violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass an order afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of issuing notice and personal hearing. 2. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without notice which is in violation of prin...
Michael Hart Vs. M/s. Ninestars Information Technologies Ltd., Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: CompanyPetition filed under section 433 (E) and (F) of the Companies Act, 1956, to direct Ninestars Information Technologies Limited, be wound up by and under the orders and directions of this court and to pass an order directing that the Official Liquidator attached to this court be appointed as the Liquidator of the company Ninestars Information Technologies Limited with all the powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 including the power to take possession of all affairs, assets, management, books, papers and vouchers.) 1. This company petition is filed to wind up the respondent company and to appoint the Official Liquidator to take possession of all and assets management, books, papers and vouchers of the respondent company. 2. This court issued notice regarding admission to the respondent as early as on 20.01.2009. After notice, the respondent entered appearance, filed counter affidavit and opposed the application. This court by an order dated 29.06.2012, af...
Sathiya Vs. The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.9.2015 in Memo No.1061/2015 against the husband of the petitioner Kabali @ Rajesh M/A, 27, son of Sampath, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Kabali @ Rajesh, aged 27 years, son of Sampath, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.1061/2015, dated 30.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, S...
Mottaiyan @ Angamuthu and Others Vs. The State represented by, The Sup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under section 374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment in SC.No.137/2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 13.08.2012.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.543/2012 is A1 ; the appellants in Crl.A.No.545/2012 is A3 and A4 ; the appellants in Crl.A.No.549/2012 are A5, A6, A7, A12 and A13 ; and the appellants in Crl.A.No.539/2012 are A8 and A14 in SC.No.137/2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The 2nd accused in this case was one Mrs.Sivagami. [Mrs.Sivagami was discharged as per the order of this Court made in Crl.RC.No.508/2006 dated 23.04.2008]. The Trial Court framed as many as seven charges against the accused, which are as follows:- ad>Sl.NoRank of the AccusedCharges framed1A1 to A10, A12 to A14120[B] IPC2A1, A3 to A7, A12 and A13364 IPC3A1, A3 to A7, A12 and A13395 IPC4A1, A3 and A4302 IPCA5, A6, A7, A12 and A13302 read with 109 IPCA2, A8, A9, A10 and A14302...
L.M.Y. Yejas Vs. G. Naasira Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision against the order dated 21.10.2013 made in M.P.No.290 of 2013 in M.C.No.357 of 2012 on the file of learned III Additional Family Court, Chennai.) 1. Aggrieved as against the order of interim maintenance granted in M.P.No.290 of 2013 in M.C.No.357 of 2012 by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, III Family Court, Chennai, respondent's husband has directed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner is a Lab Assistant in New College, Royapettah. He is a permanent staff. By way of interim measure, under the impugned order, the trial Court directed him to pay his wife Rs.4,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards her travelling and medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- (lump sum) towards litigation expenses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's take home salary itself is very less and he has to take care of his ailing mother also, in such circumstances, the amount ordered is ex...
Ramasamy and Another Vs. Ganesan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.12.2015 made in I.A.No.612 of 2002 in O.S.No.39 of 2012 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.) 1. Heard the arguments advanced on both sides. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dismissing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. 3. The petitioners in the revision are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2012 filed on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal for declaration that a particular settlement deed executed in favour of the vendors of the revision petitioners/defendants is null and void. The revision petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint contending that they had already filed a suit for bare injunction in which issues regarding validity of the settlement deed were framed and decided finally and that hence, the present sui...
N. Raja Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Adi Dra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to its proceedings in Ref.No.GTM 00018/TNNHIS/09/2014, dated 17.09.2014 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs.4,18,921/- incurred by the petitioner for taking medical treatment at Apollo Hospital in Tiruchirappali.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to its proceedings in Ref.No.GTM 00018/TNNHIS/09/2014, dated 17.09.2014 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs.4,18,921/- incurred by the petitioner for taking medical treatment at Apollo Hospital in Tiruchirappali. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been ave...
M/s. Green Globe Trading Company, Represented by its Proprietor Shaik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the public notice dated 27.01.2016 issued by the fourth respondent wherein and by which the fourth respondent has imposed certain conditions while inviting applications for registration of sales contract for import of poppy seeds from China into India. 2. Brief facts which are essential for determination of the disputes involved in this writ petition are as under:- (i) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and holds TIN NO. 33600662611 and CST No. 1132522. The petitioner is also in possession of Import Export Code (IEC) issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade bearing IEC No. 0412024047 for the purpose of import of spices, poppy seeds and other items. According to the petitioner, during the course of their business, they have intended to import poppy seeds from China, which according to them is permitted in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy in force from time to time. The condition prescribed i...
G. Karthic Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the entire land acquisition proceedings vide Notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the said Act in G.O.(Ms) No.740 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.07.1982 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part.II Section.2 on 11.08.1982 followed by Sec.6 declaration published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 10.07.1985 in G.O.Ms.No.625 dated 25.06.1985 and the consequential Order of the 1st respondent in Letter No. 26222/LA 3(1)/2011-9 dated 15.11.2012 as null and void and unlawful in so far as the petitioner's lands are concerned and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of his lands comprised in S.No.359/2, 369 and 372/1, situated at Chithrauthanpalayam Village, Dharapuram Town and Taluk, Erode District, now Tirupur District, measuring to an extent of 2.64.0 hectare...
Arulmigu Sri Meenaksi Sundareswarar Devasthanam, Madurai, through its ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to dispose of E.P.No.77 of 2006 in O.S.No.123 of 1970 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, within a time frame fixed by this court.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed for a direction to the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of E.P.No.77 of 2006 in O.S.No.123 of 1970, within the stipulated period of time. 2. The revision petitioner / plaintiff filed E.P.No.77 of 2006 for execution of decree dated 23.12.1978. The said Execution Petition was dismissed. Against that order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD).Nos.987 to 989 of 2010. This Court set aside the order of dismissal passed in the Execution Petition and restored the Execution Petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the order of this Court. According to the petitioner, in spite of the order passed by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the Execution Petition is kept pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »