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.
Thonthiappan Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and Ano ...
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 representation dated 28.3.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court, for issuance of patta in the name of the Petitioner.) 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 1 and 2. 3. According to the Petitioner, his representation, dated 28.3.2016 addressed to the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District has not met with any positive response till date. Therefore, as an aggrieved person, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. A perusal of the contents of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 28.3.2016 shows that the Petitioner has sought for issuance of patta in his name from the name of his Father, who has been given patta in the year 1994....
Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, Rep by its Authori ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Common Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in impugned order in TIN: 33440461618/2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 dated 30.10.2015, on the file of the respondent No.3, quash the same.) 1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner have challenged the assessment orders passed by the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act), for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, dated 30.10.2015. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical, they were heard together and with the consent on either side, are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in 2007 and engaged in the business of supplying Base Transmission Modules and its related IT Telecommunication equipment for use by various...
Muruganantham Vs. P. Nagarajan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 31.3.2015 made in Cont.P(MD)No.466 of 2015 in W.P(MD)No.3531 of 2015 for committing contempt of Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that balance payment by virtue of the earlier order, dated 26.4.2016 was complied with by the Respondent. 3. Recording the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed. Consequently, connected Sub-Application is closed....
Kovai Medical Center and Hospitals Limted, represented by its Managing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notices and proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.4.2016 and 5.5.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue building plan approval for S.F.No.371, 389, Ariyur Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the Petitioner Mr.K.Balasubramani 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 above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
V. Karthikeyan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai 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 third respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to the Petitioner, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation petition No.1836 dated 28.12.2015, 22.2.2106 letter sent by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.977/2016/Aa3, dated 29.03.2016 to the third respondent.) 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 necessary orders may be passed by this Court in directing the Third Respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to him, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation petition No.1836 dated 28.12.2015, 22.2.2106 and letter sent by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.977/2016/Aa3, dated 29.03.2016 to the third respondent. 4. This Court, at this stage, has perused the contents of the...
Muniyan and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Tirukoil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, Villupuram District, in S.C.No.195 of 2010 dated 30.04.2014.) Common Judgement S. Nagamuthu, J. The Appellants in Crl.A.No.279 of 2014 are Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 and the Appellants in Crl.A.No.292 of 2014 are Accused Nos.9 and 12 in S.C.No.195 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sessions Division of Villupuram. Including these appellants, there were altogether thirteen accused, who faced the trial. A1, Ashok s/o Narayanasamy, died pending trial and thus, charges stood abated against him. The trial court framed as many as four charges charges as detailed below:- ad>Charge NumberCharges framed againstPenal Provision under which charges framed1A7, A8, A10, A11 and A13Section 147 of IPC2A1 to A6, A9 and A12Section 148 of IPC3A1 to A12Section 302 of IPC4A5, A6, A11 and A13...
K. Anitha and Others Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Nagapattin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Common Prayer in both Criminal Appeals: These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Mahalir Fast Track Judge, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.92 of 2012 dated 17.09.2014.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.504 of 2014 is A.5 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.505 of 2014 are A.1 to A.4 respectively in S.C.No.92 of 2012, on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam. They stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 I.P.C., in the alternative Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 17.09.2014, the trial Court convicted all the five accused for offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced A.1 to A.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each...
Muthu @ Vembadu Muthu and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram, in S.C.No.55 of 2010 dated 15.04.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.276 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 and 3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.432 of 2014 is the Accused No.2 in S.C.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram. They stood charged for various offences as detailed below:- Charge Number (s)Charge(s) framed againstPenal provision(s) under whichcharges framed1A1, A2 and A3under Section 120-B r/w 392 of IPC2A1, A2 and A3under Section 449 of IPC3A1 and A2under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC4A2 and A3under Section 302 of IPC5A1under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPCThe trial court, by judgement dated 15.04.2014, convicted A1 to A3 as detailed below:- Charge Number(s)Rank of Accused who was found guiltyPenal provision under which conviction was recordedQuantum of sentence award...
B. Babu Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute by way of vacating the petitioner's shops in Shop Nos.110 and 111 situated at Meenakshi Bazaar, Madurai District without adapting due process of law.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute by insisting upon the petitioner to vacate Shop Nos.110 and 111 situated at Meenakshi Bazaar, Madurai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that there are 11 cases pending against the petitioner's nephew and that this petitioner and his nephew are running the shops jointly. It is stated that as on date, nobody has preferred any complaint agains...
A. Mary Jenifer Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67 AP-3440 seized by the second respondent on 12.02.2016 to the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, 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, she being the owner of TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67 AP-3440 was seized by the second respondent on 12.02.2016 on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport 19 bags of rice (each containing 50 kgs.). It appears that after seizure of the vehicle, a case was registered by the second respondent/Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Trichy in Crime No.18 of 2016 in respect of an offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ...