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.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. E. Sukumar and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellanies Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 18.08.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3917 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) 1. This appeal has been directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award passed by the Tribunal dated 18.08.2010 and made in the claim petition in MCOP No.3917 of 2006 on the ground of negligence and quantum. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company, herein, is the second respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent herein, who has sustained injuries, in a road traffic accident, which is said to have been taken place on 11.07.2006 at about 9.00 a.m., involving a Motor Cycle and a Car bearing Registration No.TN-20-AX-4408, had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for the injuries sustained by him. 3. T...
Nabeesa Beevi Vs. The General Manager Southern Railway Head Quarters a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 4.5.2016 and to renew the Petitioners License Catering and Bakery Stall S-20, S-22, Catering and TA Stall S-23, Villupuram Junction.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Prof.M.Udaya Bhanu, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of this petition as well as to the typed set of documents and would state that the petitioner was granted licence to run a catering and bakery stall at Villupuram Junction in Platform Nos.4/5 and 6, for a period of five years between 15.06.2007 and 15.06.2012 and thereafter, it was periodically extended and it expired on 15.06.2016. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 04.05.2016 to the third respondent for renewal of licence and though it was received and acknowledged, no orders have been passe...
Gaensan Vs. Karunakaran, I.A.S., District Collector and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 14.10.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.16761 of 2014.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the Respondents/Contemnors that the interim order passed in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.16761 of 2014, dated 14.10.2014 has been complied with. This fact is not disputed on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Hence, this Court concludes that nothing survives for adjudication in the Contempt Petition and accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
Martin Manrique Mansour Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Sessions Judge-Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.507 of 2016 in S.C.No.109 of 2013 and set aside the order dated 27.05.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order dated 27.05.2016 made in Cr.M.P.No. 507 of 2016 in S.C.No.109 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge-Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, in and by which, the petition filed by the State for recall of P.Ws.1 to 5, 7, 8, 23, 35 and 36, was allowed. 2. It is seen that in the order passed by the Court below, it is mentioned that the High Court has already granted liberty to the Special Public Prosecutor to thoroughly analyze the depositions of witnesses already examined and file a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if warranted, by giving reasons as to how his further examination is essential to the just decision of the case. 2a. Pursuant thereto, a...
K. Sonaimuthu Vs. The Tahsildar, Sivagangai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(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 30.05.2016 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. 3. According to the Petitioner, the lands measuring an extent of 1 acre and 45 cents in S.No.237/1 situated at Ezhavizhivayal Village, Kannankottai Group, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivagangai District originally belonged to his father Karuppiah. On 6.3.1985, a partition took place in respect of the property and some other properties between his father, himself and his brothers namely, one Mr.Suppiah, Mr.Arumugam and Mr.Vijayaraman, by means of a partition deed. As per the partition deed, one third share in the center portion of the southern side vacant land in the said property and half share of western side of the building were allo...
K.M.P. Kolandagounder Vs. The Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct the cultural programme at Vellandivalasu Arulmighu Sri Mullaivana Natarajar Koil Kumbabishegam Thiruvizha on 16.06.2016 at Edapadi Taluk, Salem District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.06.2016.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Organizer of the Temple festival of Vellandivalasu Arulmighu Sri Mullaivana Natarajar Koil Kumbabishegam Thiruvizha at Edapadi Taluk, Salem District and he submitted an application dated 06.06.2016 to the respondent praying for permission to conduct cultural programme which includes song and dance programme to be held on 16.06.2016 and since no orders have been passed, came forward to file this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the event of permission being g...
S. Veeramani and Another Vs. The State, Rep. by The Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer (in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.310 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records connected with the order, dated 15.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.266 of 2015, on the file of the Hon'ble Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 and set aside the same, consequently to direct the Hon'ble Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 to return back the rupees 25000/- deposited by the petitioner as security for bail with accrued interest within the time stipulated by this Court. Prayer (in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.311 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records connected with the order, dated 15.10.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.265 of 2015, on the file of the Hon'ble Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 19...
C.J. Hemanth Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2015 and to issue separate patta and measure the petitioner's land correct measurement T.S.No.19 of an extent of 0.95.5 hec. situated in old Survey Nos.461 of an extent of 1 acre 20 cents and 462/2 of an extent of 1 acre 16 cents at Korappoor Area, Senthamedu, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District T.S.No.29 of an extent of 0.73.0 hec.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner, in his representation dated 30.11.2015, addressed to the District Collector, Dindigul, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar/respondent (in writ petition), had prayed for inspection of the lands in T.S.Nos.19 and 29 at Kodaikanal Nagar, Ward-D, Block No.26. 4. In the said representation, the petitioner has eared his grievance that the measurement wa...
M/s. U Y Look, Trichy District Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Trichy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: W.P.(MD).Nos.10411 and 10412 of 2016:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TIN:33103465313/2013-14 and 2014-2015 dated 17.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 quash the same as illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.) 1. M/s.U.Y.Look, represented by its Proprietor-N.Senthilkumar, challenges the impugned assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Srirangam Assessment Circle, Srirangam, Trichy, in these Writ Petitions. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's clerk who received the Notice in their Office, did not bring it to their knowledge, as a result, objections could not be filed by the petitioner-Firm in time. 3. It is not known as to how the petitioner can take up this unbelievable stand, when Notices dated, 02.12.2015 and 29.01.2016, were issued to the petitioner-Firm and after receip...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
V.M. Velumani, J. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.05.2016, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime Nos.34 and 36 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that both the de-facto complainants are sister concern. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Shanmugam Traders Private Limited, Tuticorin. The said Company purchased goods from the de-facto complainants on credit basis and issued cheques for the total value of the goods purchased by them. The said Company stored the purchased goods in 13 individual names, who are the family members of the petitioner in Tamil Nadu Ware Housing Corporation, situated at Milavittan, Tuticorin, and obtained Negotiable Warehousing Receipts in the name of individuals. They pledged the goods with Industrial Development Bank of India [in short IDBI ], Tuticorin and borrowed money. They did not p...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »