Chennai Court May 2016 Judgments
Kavin Motors Vs. The Managing Partner, P. Senthilkumar, Shri Saravanag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-27-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the docket order dated 17.05.2016 and made in I.A.No.220 of 2016 in O.S.No.131 of 2016, on the file of Vacation Civil Judge, Tiruppur cum District Munsif, Dharapuram.) 1. Heard the submissions of Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner/1st Defendant viz., Kavin Motor is a registered partnership firm, which is established in the year 2015 with the sole object of selling two wheeler vehicles of Yamaha Motor India Private Limited and for sale of spares and services of the vehicle and which is a leading manufacturer of Motor Bike in India. It is also registered with Commercial Tax Department with C.S.T.No.75759/TN.33096291268 with effect from 23.02.2015. The petitioner has been appointed as a dealer of India Yamaha Motor Private Limited by letter dated 07.04.2015...
Tag this Judgment!V. Arumugam and Others Vs. R. Chandrasekaran and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.04.2005, on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.294 of 1997, dated 04.03.2004, on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur.) 1. The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2005, made in A.S.No.2 of 2004, on the file of the Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.03.2004, made in O.S.No.294 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, as culled out from the plaint for the purpose of disposal of the Second Appeal, is as follows:- The suit property is a landed property, which belonged to the first defendant. In the month of February 1991, the first defendant was engaged in construction of house at Thanjavur. He was in...
Tag this Judgment!Theresammal and Other Vs. Regi and Other
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-26-2016
R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The appellants herein, who are the defendants in the suit, which was filed by the respondents herein for partition and separation possession, have come up with the present Appeal Suit questioning the validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2010 made in O.S. No. 182 of 2009, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, as culled out from the plaint, is as follows:- The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs and the other defendants. The suit property originally belonged to late John Chettiar, who is the husband of the first defendant and the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4. He was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death, viz., on 08.11.2003 and he left the plaintiffs and the defendants as his surviving legal heirs. While the said John Chettiar was alive, he had yet another property of 30 cents of land, which was allotted to the fifth plaintiff and the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Vs. Shanmugavalli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-26-2016
(Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2012 made in S.A.(MD)No.112 of 2008 by this Court.) 1. The review applicant is the appellant in S.A.(MD)No.112 of 2008 and this Review Application is directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 15.02.2012, to review the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Nutshell facts that lead to the filing of the present Review Application, could be succinctly portrayed thus: 3.1. The suit in O.S.No.474 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, was filed plaintiff for partition of half share in the suit items and for rendition of accounts. The suit properties are 18 in number. The properties belonged to two sisters, namely, Chinnamadiammal and Chellammal, having been allotted to them in a suit for partition. 3.2. The plaintiff and the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-25-2016
S.S. Sundar, J. 1. The petitioners/A2 and A3, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 384, 323, 395 and 397 IPC, in Crime No.149 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, have filed the present petition for getting bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a land dispute between the first accused and the de facto complainant and that due to previous motive, the incident has occurred and the case was registered. 3. Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have been arrested and remanded to custody on 04.04.2016 and since then they are in duress. It was also submitted that already one of the co-accused/A4 was released on bail by this Court, by order dated 11.05.2016 in CRL.OP(MD)No.7962 of 2016. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to ge...
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Vs. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 23.12.2015 in BCDFGISSSV No. 1275/2015 against the son of the Petitioner, Detenu Vinoth M/A 30, S/o. Radhakrishnan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liiberty.) G. Chockalingam, J. 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No. 1275/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 23.12.2015, whereby the detenu, namely Vinoth, S/o. Radhakrishnan, aged about 30 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Baskaran Vs. The State Election Commissioner, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to unlock and unseal the premises of Sri Muthu Lodge, belonging to the petitioner and to return a sum of Rs.20,14,850/- seized from the said lodge on 13.05.2016, by considering the representation dated 15.05.2016, within the stipulated period of time.) 1. Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to unlock and unseal the premises of Sri Muthu Lodge, belonging to the petitioner and to return a sum of Rs.20,14,850/- seized from the said lodge on 13.05.2016, by considering the representation dated 15.05.2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent, District Election Officer / Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasamy Educational Charitable Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to grant approval of Mr. Valluvan as Secretary of Sivaram Middle School, Mamsapuram, Srivilliputur Taluk, Virudhunagar District based on the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 06.04.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to grant approval of Mr.Valluvan, as Secretary of Sivaram Middle School, Mamsapuram, Srivilliputur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, based on the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 06.04.2016. 2. The Writ petitioner is a Charitable Trust, viz., Sri Kandasamy Educational Charitable Trust, which is running a School named 'Sivaram Middle School' at Mamsapruam, Srivillputur Taluk. 3. The petitioner has sent a proposal on 06.04.2016 stating that the term of the Secretary of the School was expired on 07.02.2016 and the Trust is decided to appoint Mr. K. Valluvan as School Sec...
Tag this Judgment!A. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: May-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission an also provide adequate Police protection for conduct and celebrate the Vaigashi festival of Sri Kali Amman, Sri Mari amman and Sri Bhagavathi Amman temple, Nandavanapatti, Dindigul District form 24.05.2016 to 26.05.2016 as mentioned in his representation dated 26.03.2016.)1. This writ petition has been filed calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission and also provide adequate Police protection for conduct and celebrate the Vaigashi festival of Sri Kali Amman, Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Satta Panchayat Iyakkam (SPI) and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 15.05.2016 expeditiously and pass such other further orders or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to postpone the counting of votes on 19.05.2016, and to count the votes any date after 23.05.2016 in the General Election held in State of Tamil Nadu for the Legislative Assembly on 16.05.2016 to any other date after 23.05.2016.) Common Order: K. Kalyanasundaram, J. and D. Krishnakumar, J. 1.1. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.18159 of 2016 has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.05.2016. 1.2. According to the Wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »