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. Manoharan Vs. S.R.K. Prasad Director, Ramakrishna Industries Pvt., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Prefatory facts: 1. This is an application filed in a disposed of Company Petition. The Company Petition, which is numbered as C.P.No.30 of 1981 was disposed of on 19.12.2001. On that date, the Company Petition C.P.No.30 of 1981 was dismissed. 2. In the Company Petition, one Mr.V.Manoharan is arrayed as the 6th respondent. The captioned application has been filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the 6th respondent, i.e., Mr.V.Manoharan. 3. In the captioned application, three respondents have been arrayed. The 1st respondent is one Sri.S.R.K.Prasad (here after referred to as SRKP). SRKP is the 5th petitioner in C.P.No.30 of 1981. Likewise, the 2nd respondent in the captioned application is a company, by the name, Ramakrishna Industrial Pvt. Ltd., (in short RIPL). RIPL is arrayed as 1st respondent in C.P.No.30 of 1981. The 3rd respondent in the captioned application is the Tahsildar (South), Taluk Office, Coimbatore. This respondent was not a party to the main Company Petition (i.e., C...
The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of Writ Court dated 30.10.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30 October, 2009, in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge quashed the punishment imposed on the respondent primarily on the ground that the Executive Officer is only an executing authority bound to implement the orders passed by the Fit Person. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The respondent functioned as the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar and Badrakaliamman Thirukoil, Madapuram, Manamadurai Taluk, in the district of Sivagangai. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for dereliction of duty and loss of revenue to the temple. There were altogether four charges. Since the explanation submitted by the respondent was found to be un...
Palanivel Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Cases, Sivagangai in Cr.M.P.No.138 of 2016 dated 13.05.2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2014.) 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Cr.M.P.No.138 of 2016 filed under 311 Cr.P.C. on the file of learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sivagangai, A3 has directed this revision. 2. A3 a public servant along with other accused is being prosecuted before the said Special Judge for certain alleged commission of criminal misconduct. Examination of prosecution witnesses is going on. He filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.8 and 18. 3. The learned Magistrate quoting VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [AIR 2015 SC 1206], dismissed the petition. 4. A decision should be applied when the facts of the case warrants such application. Application of case law depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 5. No...
Silambarasan and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Din ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2016 in C.C.No.229 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Palani dated 24.03.2016.) 1. The application filed to recall the witnesses for cross examination has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.229 of 2014, it appears that P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on 05.03.2015 and they were not cross examined and P.Ws.4 to 6 have been examined on 07.05.2015 and they have not been cross examined. The implication of filing the application for recalling the witnesses for cross examination has been very beautifully highlighted by the learned Judicial Magistrate and accordingly, the applicat...
S. Vijayan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(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 consider the Petitioner's representations dated 30.1.2016 and 15.2.2016 requesting to cancel the fraudulent sale deed executed by Nallathambi Kone in favour of Subbiah registered in Doc.No.76/1976, dated 23.01.1976 based on Section 68(2) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and Circular No.67, dated 3.11.2011 issued by the First Respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his representations, dated 30.1.2016 and 15.2.2016 seeking to cancel the fraudulent sale deed executed by Nallathambi Kone in favour of Subbiah registered in Doc.No.76/1976, dated 23.01.1976 based on Section 68(2) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and Circul...
P. Josin Vs. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land in S.No.162/22, Mukilthagam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 10.6.2016 within the time limit stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had remitted a sum of Rs.80/- towards fee for measurement of land in S.No.162/22, Mukilthagam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by the Surveyor and till date his representation dated 10.6.2016 given in this regard, has not seen the light of the day. 4. Considering the fact that the representation of the Petitioner, dated 10.6.2016 addressed to the respondents is pending...
The Union of India, Rep. by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court, dated 05.12.2006 made in W.P.No.18133 of 2001.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. The instant writ appeal arises from the order, dated 05.12.2006 made in W.P.No.18133 of 2001. 2. The facts in nutshell, leading to the filing of the intra court appeal are that the appellant / petitioner, being a public limited company has established and is administering a Hospital in the city of Trichy; that the petitioner decided to acquire certain sophisticated machines for the Hospital; that the petitioner wanted to avail benefit of Notification No.64/88, dated 01.03.1988 introduced by the Union of India, in exercise of the powers under Section 25 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 and the petitioner sought certificate for exemption of duty under the aforesaid Notification and Customs Duty Exemption Certificate was accordingly, issued after the State Government gave its recommendation. The machines were installed and the author...
K. Thangavel Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Rural Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment in S.C.No.168/2014 dated 09.04.2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.)S. Nagamuthu.J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.168/2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Fast Track Court), Tiruppur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court, by judgment dated 09.04.2015, convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 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:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Kannimalar. Both the accused and the deceased were residing at J.J.Nagar, Veerapandi, Tiruppur. As a matter of fact, the deceased ...
P. Sureshkumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, to dispose of the C.C.No.69/2014 pending on his file within the time stipulated by this Court.) This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, to dispose of the C.C.No.69/2014 pending on his file within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3. From a perusal of the 'B' Diary extract, it appears that summons have already been directed to be issued to L.Ws.1 to 3. However, the same entry is repeated from 18.06.2014 to 13.04.2016. For nearly two years, without any progress, the case is pending. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and that right should not be deprived to the accused. From the...
N. Muthukrishnan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 16.6.2016 for rectifying the mistakes in the official records I.e., UDR A Registry in S.No.156/1B2 in Revenue Office, Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his representation dated 16.6.2016 addressed to the Second Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Thoothukudi District seeking change of patta in his name has not been considered by the Second Respondent till date. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 16.6.2016 is pending on the file of the Second Respondent/The Revenue Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »