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.
Sister. Piusha, Incharge, Vimala Balabhavan for Girls, Kanyakumari Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take back the custody of Minor Devika, aged about 14 years, who is the inmates of Vimala Bala Bhavan for Girls, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District to any other Government Home within the time stipulated by this Honble Court.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take back the custody of Minor Devika, aged about 14 years, who is the inmates of Vimala Bala Bhavan for Girls, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District to any other Government Home. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a letter bearing Na.Ka.No.679/A1/2016 dated 21.06.2016 of the 4th respondent addressed to him, wherein it has been stated that the custody of Minor Devika, has been handed over to the Government Children's Home, Parakkinkal, Nagercoil in the p...
A. Durai Vs. The Commissioner, Karur District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(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 execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, with regard to MIG Plot No.18 in Arugampalayam Housing Scheme, within the limits of the respondent Municipality on the basis of the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.5.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he was allotted MIG Plot No.18 with the measurement of 60 x 30 sq.ft in Arugampalayam of Karur Municipality in the lot system conducted by the Respondent. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.37,600/-.The Petitioner had paid the total sale consideration of Rs.57,863/- together with other incidental charges and interest. In-spite of the same, the Respondent had not chosen to execute the registered sale deed. 4. It comes to be known that the Petitio...
Sivanandam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Collector, Dharmapuri and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.1998 made in A.S.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.08.1996 made in O.S.No.42 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.1998 made in A.S.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.08.1996 made in O.S.No.42 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the assignment patta issued by first and second defendants in favour of third defendant as null and void and also for permanent injunction agai...
Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police All Women ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of Mahila cum Sessions Court, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 376(i) and 506(i) IPC. By judgment dated 26.03.2015, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 376(i) IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (no default sentence was imposed). The Trial Court has ordered to pay the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- to P.W.2 and the child born to her, as compensation. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1 is the father of P.W.2. P.W.1 was residing at Ganapathy Village near Settipalayam with his wife and two children. The second daughter of P.W.1 is P.W.2. P.W.2 was studying in the Government Higher Secondary School at Kamarajar Nagar. Her date of birth is 21.06.1996. At the time of occurrence, she was s...
T. Thangaraj Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order to withdraw the case in S.T.C.No.260 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur and transfer the same to Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Erode.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to transfer the case in S.T.C.No.260 of 2012 pending on the file of the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Erode. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents. Brief Facts: 3. The complainant/petitioner initiated proceedings under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for the default committed by the 2nd respondent in not repaying the amount, namely, Rs.15,00,000/-; that the cheque issued by the 2nd respondent, when presented, got returned with an endorsement cheque stopped ; that the petitioner also received a reply...
S. Krishnasamy Vs. The Block Development Officer, Thoothukudi District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from take over the land in Survey No.265-2A of Vilathikulam Village Vilathikulam Taluk Thoothukudi Disrtict except under due process of law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property in Sy.No.265-2A, measuring an extent of 5018 sq.ft, Vilathikulam Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. After purchasing the property, he laid hay in the said property and also cows-shed in the said property. It appears that adjacent to the said land, there is a government poromboke in Sy.No.263/3. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the first Respondent/Block Development Officer, Vilathikulam Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, constructed a building for E-Seva Centre for Vilathikulam Taluk. In this connection, it is represented on b...
E. Sahul Hameed Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent not to insist the petitioner to withdraw the petition in M.L.O.P.No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai and consequently directing the second respondent not to insist the petitioner and his wife to execute the sale deed in favour of the said Babu and to pass any further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
M. Sumathi Vs. The Inspector of Panchayats The District Collector Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 28.08.2015 made in W.P.No.7436 of 2015.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st and 2nd Respondent and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the 3rd respondent. 2. It transpires that the appellant was the elected President of the Maramangalathupatty Panchayat and is not well-versed with the Ministerial function of the Panchayat and she was taking the advice of the then Panchayat Clerk, P.Subramanian till he was promoted as Junior Assistant and in the vacancy so caused, one C.Manickavasu was appointed, who in turn took the advice from P.Subramanian and assisted the appellant. In connection with the function of the village Panchayat, C.Manickavasu, the Panchayat Clerk, obtained a cheque dated 01.07.2013 for Rs.6,300/- signed by the appellant, for payment of salary to Overhead Tank Operators of the Panchayat. After one month, the appellant w...
ADV R. Mahalakshmi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Egmore and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the second respondent to register a case on the complaint dated 07.09.2013 and take action against all the accused. Criminal Original Petition filed u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to transfer the investigation of Crime No.96 of 2014 on the file of Inspector of Police, CCB Chennai to any other investigating police agency. Criminal Original Petition filed u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction to respondents to delete all the post made by the accused against the petitioner in his blog https://www.facebook.com/savukku, https://www.facebook.com/achimuithushankar, www.savukku.net and direct the respondents to take action against all the accused. Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.27389 of 2013 dated 14.11.2014.) Commo...
E.T.A. General Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.5501 of 2016, declining to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the Order-in-Appeal No.349/2015 (STA-II), dated 30.11.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein. 2. Facts deduced from the materials on record are that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai, passed an order of assessment on 29.02.2012. Appeal filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Correctness of the said order has been tested in W.P.No.21811 of 2013, on the ground that the period of limitation has to be calculated, taking into account, the date of impugned order and not the date on which, the appeal was preferred. Adverting to the submissions, a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21811 of 2013, dated 13.08.2013, passed the following orders, 4. There is no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »