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.
Banumathy Vs. Velmurugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2015 and made in A.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2014 and made in O.S.No.258 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif, Jayamkondam.) The plaintiff is the appellant in a suit for specific performance. She lost before both the Courts below. This matter is listed before this Court at the adjourned admission stage. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The plaintiff sought to get the sale deed executed in her favour by the defendant in pursuant to an agreement dated 24.12.1994 by filing a suit in the year 2010. Admittedly, the suit notice itself was issued by the plaintiff only in the year 2010 i.e.,on 26.7.2010, even though it is contended by the plaintiff that since the parties are closely related and that the defendant was evading the execution of the sale deed for a long time and that there was panchayat held ...
J. Justin Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nage ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent herein from proceeding with the Revision Petition in RP No.22270/2012 dated 26.07.2012 pending on his file till the disposal of the civil suit in O.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari and pass further orders as this Court may deem it fit.) 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 In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Jothilingam Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to measure and fix the boundaries of the petitioner's property situated in Sy.No.319/4A/A1 correlated to Re.Sy.No.319/4A1A1A, Koottudankadu Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, to the extent of 21 cents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition is for passing of an order by this Court in directing the second respondent to measure and fix the boundaries in respect of the petitioner's property in Sy.No.319/4A/A1 correlated to Re.Sy.No.319/4A1A1A, Koottudankadu Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, to the extent of 21 cents by considering his representation dated 28.04.2016. 4. Considering the limited plea made by the petitioner, i.e for passing an order by this Court, to consider ...
Thiru. S. Ayyathurai Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the lease period of quarry lease by 1 month pursuant to proceedings of 4th respondent dated 02.06.2015 in respect of Miscellaneous Property Nos.11, 12 , 13 and 15 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2016 within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that his request for renewal of lease for the period 2016-17 may be considered by the fourth respondent. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the respondents and requested them to extend his lease period for one year and further he gave an undertaking to pay the lease amount to be fixed by the respondents for the extension period in question. Admittedly, the petitioner's representat...
Byragi Mutt Sri Venkatesa Perumal Temple, Rep. by its Manager/Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Serial Number 0171628 being arrears of property tax demand card in the year 1995 to 2014 intimating the arrears of property tax demand card a sum of Rs.3,51,004/- upto the period March 2014 in relating to the petitioner temple and quash the said property tax demand card.) Heard Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a Religious Institution under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. They submitted application before the respondents on 21.08.2014 seeking retrospective exemption from levy of property tax. This representation/ application is pending with the respondents since...
M/s. VTX Industries Limited and Another Vs. M/s. Thiagarajar Mills Pri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions are filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.433 to 441 of 2016 in C.A.Nos.30 to 38 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Madurai dated 07.06.2016 and set aside the same by allowing the criminal revisions.) Common Order: 1. Some queer questions arises in these revisions. 2. These revisions arose out of grant of appeal bails by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P.Nos.433 to 441 of 2016 in C.A.Nos.30 to 38 of 2016. 3. Incidentally, there arises a clash between criminal law, company law and certain basic principles of general penal law of India. 4. As these petitions presents very same complex questions we have tagged them together and we shall dispose of them together. 5. The details of the revisions are as under: Case No.ConvictionSentenceS.T.C.No.1774 of 2012u/s 138 N.I. Act1 years S.I. + Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C....
M.L. Kasthuri Sindhu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.06.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P a...
K. Periyagangai Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2014 within the time fixed by this Court after giving opportunity to the respondents 5 to 11 as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2014 within the time fixed by this Court after giving opportunity to the respondents 5 to 11. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property measuring an extent of 54 cents in Survey No.273/4 in Alanganallur Village belongs to one Periyagangai, who is the petitioner's ancestor. The petitioner submits that his father - P.Karuthagangai, who is one of the co-owners in respect of the properties abovementioned, died on 26.03.1989, leaving the petitioner...
A. Syed Abdul Rahim Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 24.02.2016 in accordance with law and on merits and also following the procedure under Sections 18 and 19 of Right to Information Act within the time to be fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the main writ petition, the relief is sought for by passing an order by this Court in directing the first respondent/State Information Commissioner, Teynampet, Chennai to dispose of the complaint/representation dated 24.02.2016, in accordance with law, on merits and also by adopting the procedure enshrined under Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, within a period to be determined by this Court. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ St...
A. Radhakrishnan Vs. Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruptio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.851 of 2015 in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court, Puducherry and set aside the order dated 22.12.2015.) 1. Challenging the order of dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.851 of 2015 in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2015, by order dated 22.12.2015, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder: (a) The petitioner herein is A-3 (Radhakrishnan) in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2015. A-1 Shanmugasundaram, who was working as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Cashier in Revenue-III Sub-Division of Division IX of the Electricity Department, Puducherry, misappropriated the Revenue collection amount to the tune of Rs.68,13,948/- without remitting the same in the Government Account during the period while he was working in the said office from 06.0...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »