Chennai Court June 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.
V.F. John Yesudhas Vs. B. Uttam Chand and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants. a) Declaration that the plaintiff is not due and owing to the defendants, their companies and concerns in whatever name and composition they may be styled, any sum under the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants, except the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) agreed to be paid as goodwill; b) To render true and faithful account of all transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of supply of mobile phones to WAVETEL, the plaintiffs erstwhile enterprise and concurrently to furnish all sums received from the plaintiff; c) A mandatory injunction directing the defendants to surrender all cheques and pro-notes obtained from the plaintiff and Wave Communications (P) Ltd., into this Court for destruction. d) For costs of this suit.) 1. The suit is filed for declaration that t...
Madhammal and Another Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in S.C.No.123 of 2014 dated 02.02.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.123 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishangiri. The Trial Court framed as many as five charges against the accused as detailed below: Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under Section1A1 and A2120(B) of IPC2A1449 of IPC3A1302 of IPC4A1 and A2201 of IPC5A2302 r/w 34 of IPCBy judgment dated 02.02.2015, the Trial Court convicted them under all the charges and sentenced them as detailed below: Rank of the AccusedPenal provision(s) under which convictedSentenceA1449 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 302 of IPCImprisonment for ...
R. Sivashanmugasundaram Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Karur and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents men or agent from evicting the petitioner under the guise of removing encroachment in S.F.No.29/1G and 29/1H Puthampoor Village, Karur Taluk, Karur, by demolishing the petitioner house without following due process of law and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents or their men or agent from evicting the petitioner under the guise of removing encroachment in S.F.No.29/1G and 29/1H Puthampoor Village, Karur Taluk, Karur, by demolishing his house without following due process of law. 2. The respondents are arrayed as such are (1) The District Revenue Officer (2)The Revenue Divisional Officer, (3) The Tahsildar and (4) The Village Administrative Officer of Puthampoor Village, Karur District. The respondents are the public s...
Netwin Sport Club, Rep. By its Secretary Vs. The Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and officials from interfering with the right of the members of the petitioner club to play Cards and Rummy.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and officials from interfering with the right of the members of the petitioner club to play Cards and Rummy. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the sports club registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27/1975) and the same was formed on 18.05.2009. The object of the formation of the petitioner society is to entertain friends and other members to get mental relief and also promote social relations to keep high moral among the members. Further, the object of the petitioner society is to increase the skill of members in the following games viz., Carom, Ches...
Mohan @ Appu Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, J.3 Guindy Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.454 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 29.01.2015, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Jayanthi. P.W.1 is her paternal uncle. The deceased was doing B.Sc. Computer Science III year course. The father of the deceased died 10 years before. P.W.1 was, therefore, taking care of the deceased as her step father. The accused is a close relative of P.W.1 as well as the deceased. He used to visit the house of P.W.1 frequently. After some time, the accused told the dec...
N. Somasundarapandian Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sub-divide the land comprised in S.No.284/7 of Pavali Village, Virudhunagar District and to issue patta in favour of Sri. Karkuvel Ayyanar Temple, Pavali Village within the time stipulated by this Court by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 3.3.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, the Temple situated in Old S.No.77, New S.No.284/7 of Pavali Village, Virudhunagar District measures an extent of 0.6684 hectares originally belongs to one Yema Nadar's son Malayandi and Irulangudi Nadar. They bequeathed the said land to the Sri Karkuvel Ayyanar Temple before several decades and the Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same. As a matter of fact, all th...
M/s. Fresh Papers India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Ravindra Nahar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent respectively in (i) TIN.No.33631086824/2010-11 dated 27.4.2016, (ii) TIN.No.33631086824/2011-12 dated 28.4.2016, (iii) TIN.No. 33631086824/2012-13 dated 28.4.2016, (iv) TIN.No.33631086824/2013-14, dated 29.4.2016 and (v) TIN.No.33631086824/2014-15 dated 29.4.2016, quash the same as illegal and against the principle of natural justice and further direct the respondent to furnish the copy of documents sought for by the petitioner and thereafter pass the order in accordance with law.) Common Order: 1. Mr. S. Manohar Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (herein...
Tvl. Rama Vilas Agro Foods, Rep. by its Proprietor, Thiruvaiyaru Vs. T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in her proceedings in S.P.79/2016 in VAT No.54/2016 dated 24.05.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. Challenging the conditional order passed by the first respondent, dated 24.05.2016, the petitioners-firm is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent has passed the revised assessment order based on the inspection conducted on 18.06.2015 and determined the amount by levying penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. Against the same, an appeal was filed before the first respondent by remitting 25% of the disputed tax. Assailing the impugned orders, he submitted that the orders impugned in all these Writ Petitions are bad in law ...
M. Karuppayee and Others Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/1337/2016 dated 23.02.2016 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
1. This application is filed seeking direction to the plaintiff to produce the bank statements of ICICI Bank, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai 101, from 2008 to 2011 and for the production of income tax returns for the financial years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. 2. The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff's side examination was completed on 11.09.2015 and was posted for defendant's side examination in chief and cross. At this juncture, the above application is filed on 05.01.2016 for the above said relief. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application that the above mentioned documents are mandatory for adjudication of the suit. However, it is not stated as to what purpose the same are required after the evidence of plaintiff is over. 4. In the counter affidavit filed, the plaintiff has submitted that already proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai is pending. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »