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.
A. Suresh Anto Vs. Anto Teena Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow this criminal revision by setting aside the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.169 of 2012 on his file and direct that the original petition in M.P.No.114 of 2012 in M.P.No.59 of 2012 in C.C.No.1854 of 2012 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and direct the learned Magistrate to take up M.P.No.114 of 2012 for enquiry in C.C.No.1854 of 2012.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner praying to allow this criminal revision by setting aside the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.169 of 2012 and direct the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to take up M.P.No.114 of 2012 for enquiry in C.C.No.1854 of 2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appe...
Tvl.Swamy Oil Industries, Kollam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Compounding order in Form No.046 dated 07.01.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to refund the Tax and penalty of Rs.1,59,975-00 with interest.) 1. Heard Mr.Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent collecting compounding fee from the petitioner and for a direction to refund the same. 3. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, is a manufacturer of coconut oil which is an exempted commodity in the State ...
S. Shakila Vs. The State rep.by its The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sivag ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 02.05.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.855 of 2016 in PR.No.26 of 2015, on the file of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and set aside the order.) 1. This revision arises out of dismissal of the property return petition in Cr.M.P.No.855 of 2016 in P.R.No.26 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. 2. The revision petitioner is wife of A1. A1 is used to easily win over others by sweet words. He has fooled the de facto complainant by purchasing certain valuable items from him, he will become a lucky man. The de facto complainant tried his luck, ultimately burnt his fingers, because he was cheated. Based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.742 of 2014 under Section 420 I.P.C., has been registered by the respondent as against A1 and others. In the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer nabbed A1 and his as...
S.M.T. Alex Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned re-tender Bulletin dated 27.5.2016 issued by the third respondent in R.O.C.No.95 of 2016 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents herein to call for a fresh tender schedule for the work under the Scheme of Tamil Nadu Urban Roads Infrastructure Fund(TURIF)-2016-2017 by fixing appropriate proper value and mentioning of correct place of work.) 1. Mr.A.Saravanan, Learned Counsel on record for the Petitioner submitted a letter, dated 21.6.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. costs....
The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2007 and made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kuzhithalai.) 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Kuzhithalai made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2006 dated 03.07.2007. 2. According to the claimants, on 22.09.2006 at 12.00 p.m, the deceased Veeramalai was driving a Lorry bearing Registration No.TMW 5679 on Trichy-Madurai Highway. While so, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-6357 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry. In that accident, the said Veeramalai died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The appellant Transport Corporation...
M. Ramalingam Vs. The State rep by its, Inspector of Police, Kizhveloo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the release of the petitioner/approver in concerned S.C.No.141 of 2015 on the file of learned District Mahila Court, Nagaipattinam district on suitable condition.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the release of the petitioner/approver in concerned S.C.No.141 of 2015 on the file of learned District Mahila Court, Nagapattinam district on suitable condition. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused along with the other accused assaulted the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedharanyam, Nagapattinam District, on account of certain previous enmity, which was nurtured by A1, a practising advocate. 3. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the accused herein attacked the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate on 18.03.2015, when she was proceeding towards Vedharanyam. In this connection, the respondent police registered a case ...
R. Kumarasamy Vs. Devaraj Arcade (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 13.04.2016 made in E.P.No.3 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.) 1. Challenging the order dated 13.04.2016 made in E.P.No.3 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-tenant that in spite of the undertaking given by the respondent-landlord in CRP(NPD) No.2523 of 2010 before this court on 28.09.2010, the respondent-landlord had proceeded with the Execution Petition and the Executing Court also ordered delivery on 13.04.2016. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the order passed in CRP(NPD) No.2523 of 2010 on 28.09.2010, wherein this court recording the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord had passed the following order...
The Managing Director Tamilnadu Government State Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Puducherry.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 24th March, 2015 passed in MCOP No.18 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Court, Puducherry. 2. The respondents herein, as petitioners, have filed MCOP No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Court below, praying to pass an award of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that on 24.9.2011, the husband of the second petitioner has driven his Hero Honda Motor Cycle from South to North and at about 13.05 hrs., near Aiyankuppam Church, the driver of the respondent has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN- 32-N-3272 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against...
Srinivasan Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, made in S.C.No.267 of 2012 dated 26.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.267 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The 3rd accused in this case was one Mr. Arun Pandian. All the 3 accused stood charged for offence under Section 294-b of IPC. The accused 1 and 2 stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. The 3rd accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. The 1st accused stood further charged for offence under Section 506(ii) of iPC. By judgment dated 26.03.2013, the trial court acquitted the 3rd accused and convicted the accused 1 and 2 under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The trial court acqui...
Perumal and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee, in S.C.No.279 of 2012 dated 19.12.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellants in Crl.A.No.41 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 and 4; the Appellant in Crl.A.No.108 of 2014 is Accused No.2; the Appellants in Crl.A.No.16 of 2014 are Accused Nos.3 and 6; and the Appellant in Crl.A.No.503 of 2014 is Accused No.5 in S.C.No.279 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee. They stood charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 19.12.2013, convicted A1 to A6 for offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted A1 to A6 from the charges under Sections 147 and 149 of IPC. The trial court sentenced A1 to A6 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »