Chennai Court June 2016 Judgments
Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai Vs. Senthamizhselvi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.2013 made in A.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Judge, Cuddalore concurring the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009 made in I.A.No.17 of 2009 in O.S.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This Second appeal has arisen out of the order passed in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The trial court allowed the application and the Appellate Court confirmed the said order. 2. The subject matter suit viz., O.S.No.122 of 2008 was filed by the appellant herein seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale; for declaration to declare sale deed, dated 24.1.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as illegal, null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the appellant's peacef...
Tag this Judgment!Felix Suresh Peter Vs. The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to consider the petitioner filed to recall the non bailable warrant dated 24.05.2016 issued against the petitioner by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, on the same day.) Liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being recognised and protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Complaining that the personal liberty of the petitioner is infringed, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, this petition has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle, seeking to quash the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, issuing Non Bailable Warrant against him dated 24.05.2016 [despite the filing of the application seeking to condone his absence]. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!A. Devendran Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2016 and grant lease to the petitioner in respect of land in Survey No.79/2 of an extent 11.7.50 hectares and Survey No.81/3Q of an extent of 1.57.50 hectares in Mumbalai Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.) 1. Heard the petitioner (party-in-person) and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R-1 and R-2 and also the Learned Counsel appearing for R-3. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, the dry lands in sy.No.79/2 measuring an extent of 11.7.50 hectares and sy.No.81/3 measuring an extent of 1.57.50 hectares, situate in Mumbalai Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, belongs to Arulmigu Balasubramaniyasamy Thirukovil, Nagaram, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. He is a resident of village nearby and he is...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramachandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating with the order of the first respondent made in G.O.(D)No.369, Public Works (E1) Department dated 29.12.2014 and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as accordance with the petitioner's service seniority from the year 2009 and with all attended benefits.) 1. Mr.P.Ramachandran, while serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Works Department Buildings (CandM) Sub-division at Dindigul, was issued with a charge memo No.CII(3)/5219/2007-15, dated 10.09.2009, by the third respondent, containing three charges. The first charge is that the petitioner has failed to verify whether special repair works had been executed as per the estimated quantity and also failed to check whether the correct measurement had been recorded in 'M Book' written by the...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanakandhan (A3) and Others Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Cud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer in all the appeals:- Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, in S.C.No.217 of 2007 dated 18.03.2014.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.163 of 2014 are the accused Nos.3, 4 and 7; the appellant in Crl.A.No.177 of 2014 is accused No.6; the appellants in Crl.A.No.190 of 2014 are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 8; the appellant in Crl.A.No.193 of 2014 is accused No.9; the appellant in Crl.A.No.207 of 2014 is accused No.10 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.208 of 2014 is accused No.11 in S.C.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam. The 5th accused was one Mr.Thoppiyan @ Dharmaraj, he died during the trial of the case and thus the charges against him stood abated. The trial Court framed as many as ten charges against the above stated 11 accused as detaile...
Tag this Judgment!Rajadurai Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 01.12.2008 made in W.P(MD)No.10930 of 2008.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. None appears for the appellant. 2. This Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 01.12.2008 dismissing the writ petition, which in turn has been instituted seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for employment on compassionate ground. 3. It appears that the father of the writ petitioner was working as Assistant Agriculture Officer under the control of the Director, Horticulture and Hill Crops Department, Chepauk, Chennai. Unfortunately, he met with untimely death on 02.09.1982, in harness. The writ petitioner submitted an application more than 12 years later and on 02.12.1994, seeking for employment to be provided to him on compassionate ground. Since no such employment has been provided for, the writ petition came to be instituted. 4. The State Government has introduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamani Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu Registr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2016 to cancel the Fraudulent Gift Deed registered in Document No.1317/2015 dated 17.06.2015 with respect to the properties comprised in Survey No.68/2 (sub divided) measuring an extent of 89 cents which situates at Ambadurai Village, Aathur Taluk, Chinnalapatty Sub Division, Dindigul District and the same to take appropriate action within a stipulated time.) 1. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 26.03.2016, addressed to the respondents 1 to 3, seeking to cancel the fraudulent gift deed dated 17.06.2015 has not seen the light of the day till date. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. According to the...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.96 of 2014 dated 21.11.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Raju and the fourth accused is one Ilayaraman. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against the accused as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1302 of IPC2A3 and A4302 r/w 34 of IPC3A1, A3 and A4364 of IPC4A1, A3 and A4201 of IPC5A225(1)(b) of Arms Act6A2202 of I.P.C. By judgment dated 21.11.2014, the Trial Court convicted the appellants / accused 1 and 3 alone and acquitted the accused 2 and 4. The trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. TVS Finance and Services Ltd., Chennai Vs. M/s. Kwality Spinning ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal is preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of this Court dated 29.9.2008 in O.P.No.625 of 2006.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order dated 29-09-2008 passed in O.P.No.625 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has invoked arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, wherein the first respondent herein has been shown as first respondent. The arbitrator, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has allowed the same in part to the tune of Rs.1,07,88,075.59 by way of passing the impugned award. Against the award passed by the arbitrator, the respondents one and two herein, as petitioners, have filed Original Petition No.625 of 2006 on the file of this Court. 3. It is averred in the petition that the first respondent is a finance company. The first respondent an...
Tag this Judgment!Appu @ Rajendran Vs. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 11.11.2013, made in S.C.No.33 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Vellore.) 1. The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.33 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Vellore District, at Vellore. Including the appellant, there are five accused in this case. The trial Court framed as many as five charges against the accused under Sections 341, 302, 302 read with 34 and 109 and 120-B IPC. By judgment, dated 11.11.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused 1,4 and 5 from all the charges, however, convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Sections 341 and 302 IPC alone. The trial Court sentenced the second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »