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.
Giladan @ Tennies Sagaya Jervees Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.08.2015 in S.C.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandran (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandran, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram. He was convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC (by altering the offence from Section 302 IPC) and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) The deceased Angalin Anitha was the daughter of P.W.1 Anthoniammal. The deceased, after completing her XII Standard, came to Chennai and worked in a private company as Computer Operator and stayed in Chennai. The appella...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Special Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 07.01.2008 made in W.P(MD)No.117 of 2008.) Common Judgment Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. With the consent of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, we have taken up the hearing of the writ appeals today. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader would urge that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge would lead to loss of revenue to the State in the form of collection of stamp duty. It is urged before us that at the time, when the sale deed is presented for registration, the market value of immovable property covered by the conveyance existing as on that date, shall be taken into account, but, not the consideration reflected in the document. Whereas the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, being a public sector undertaking, as a welfare measure has constructed the flats and allotted them...
P.R. Jeyabalan Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul District
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 respondent to change the classification of the Petitioner's land in Old S.No.40/1-C, Ward-C, Block -15, T.S.No.1 measuring to an extent of 10 cents situated at Naidupuram, Villpatti Village, Kodaikanal Town and Taluk, Dindigul District and issue patta by considering his representation dated 28.12.2015 and 25.5.2016 within the period 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, his mother purchased three items of property situated at Naidupuram, Villpatti Village, Kodaikanal Town and Taluk, Dindigul District by means of a registered sale deed, dated 7.12.1972 from one Thulasiammal, for a valuable consideration. After the demise of his mother, he along with his brothers inherited the above said properties and are in absolute pos...
K. Gopinathan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioner, by considering the petitioner's entire period of service , i.e., from 21.07.1975 to 31.08.2010, on par with the various judgments made by this Court and further direct the respondents to sanction all pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 1. The petitioner, Mr.K.Gopinathan, who was temporarily appointed as Thalayari , by the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District vide A2/18736/75/(i) by the third respondent on 21.07.1975, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1914 Rev. dated 19.04.1973 and was given the benefit of regularisation on 01.06.1995, in the light of G.O.Ms.NO.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995, has come to this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioner, by considering the petitioner's entire period of serv...
M/s. Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Additional Commissioner, Office o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(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 Original No.2and3/2015, dated 30.01.2015, issued by the respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in hospitality industry and registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the Finance Act on the file of the respondent, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order in Original Nos.2and3 of 2015, dated 30.01.2015. By the impugned order, the respondent confirmed the demand of Rs.5,36,733/- being the duty payable by the petitioner during the period 01.04.2012 to 30.11.2012, under Section 11A(10) o...
N. Muthiah Vs. State, rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Theni
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 14.08.2015, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2290 of 2014 in C.C.No.328 of 2012.) 1. A3 in C.C.No.328 of 2012, aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.2290 of 2014, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, has directed this revision. 2. The de facto complainant Renga alleged that she owns 1.75 Cents of land, comprised in Survey No.576/1A, situate in Sivaram Nagar, in Theni Allinagaram. Ramamoorthi / A1, and his wife Vasantha / A2 have forged her signature and manufactured a power deed on 23.08.2001 (Doc.No.376 of 2001). A1, A2 and A3 have joined together, A1 sold her said property to A3 on 27.09.2006, by a registered sale deed (Doc.No.596 / 2016) based on the said forged power deed. 3. The District Crime Branch, Theni, registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2010, under Sections 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., against A1. The Investigation Officer rec...
G. Manoharan Vs. K. Shankar
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 respondent for the act of contempt committed by him for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.17170 of 2014, dated 20.10.2014.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the Contemnor/Respondent that the order passed in the main W.P(MD)No.17170 of 2014, dated 20.10.2014 is since been complied with. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
K. Arumugam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Educ ...
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 1 to 3 from cancelling the admission to the Petitioner's daughter, namely Aishwarya Caroline in B.A English under Graduation course for the academic year 2016-17.) 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 belongs to 'Hindu Adi-Dravidar Parayan' Caste which comes under the Scheduled Caste Community. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Tahsildar of Nanguneri Taluk had issued a Community Certificate to his daughter as 'Adhi-Dravidar'. But in the Transfer Certificate, dated 21.5.2016 issued by '' The Noyes Matriculation Higher Secondary School'' mentions the caste name of the Petitioner's daughter as 'Hindu Parayan'. The Third Respondent/College Authority had given admission on 9.10.2016 to the Petitioner's daughter for the course of ...
T.V. Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the respondent passed in O.MU.No. 1308/15/A1 dated 10.03.2015 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and to pass such further orders.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner being a senior citizen is assailing the order dated 05.03.2015 (signed on 10.03.2015) passed by the respondent/Tahsildar, Madurai South as an illegal one. Also, the petitioner has sought for a relief in quashing the said order of the Tahsildar. At this stage, a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 (signed on 10.03.2015) passed by the respondent/Tahsildar, Madurai South, indicates latently and patently that since the petitioner had not enclosed the death certificate along with her petition, it is not possible to know about the heirs of the deceased and as such, the petitioner was advised to seek relief through a Court of Law. 3. The Learned Counsel for the P...
G. Janobai and Others Vs. V.M. Devadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 1.8.2015 in E.A.No.7 of 2014 in E.P.No.69 of 2013 in O.S.No.222 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.) 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in E.A.No.7 of 2014 in E.P.No.69 of 2013 in O.S.No.222 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Court, Poonamallee, the judgment debtors have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in in O.S.No.222 of 2004 for specific performance. 3. After contest, the suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 21.08.2007. 4. As against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1114 of 2007 before this court and the Division Bench of this court, by its judgment and decree dated 07.03.2012, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »