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.
Arumugathammal Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohib ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl.No.139/2015, dated 08.12.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the detention order against the petitioner's son Nagarajan, aged 27 years and direct to set at liberty of the petitioner's son from the Central Jail, Palayankottai.) 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of Thiru.Nagarajan, who was detained by the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, pursuant to the detention order dated 08 December, 2015. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The son of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was involved in six adverse cases registered by Gangaikondan Police Station, Veeravanallur Police Station and Ambasamudram Police Station, under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. The ground case relates to the incident that took place on 15 November, 2015. The detenu threatened the complainant...
M/s. Bombay Rubber Products and Services Private Limited and Others Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the scheme of amalgamation.) Common Order: 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of two transferor companies with the transferee company with effect from 01.04.2016. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure 4 to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.478 of 2015 is the first transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.479 of 2015 is the second transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.480 of 2015 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there are no secured creditors as far as both the Transferor companies as well as the Transferee Company are concerned and the certificate of the Chartered Accountant confirming the same is annexed as Annexure 8 to C.P.Nos.47...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.4.2013 passed in W.P.No.9924 of 2006 on the file of this court.) 1. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 2. The writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9924 of 2006, dated 22.4.2013. 3. The case in brief is as follows:- The respondent V.Gunasekaran joined in service as Record Clerk 03.12.1970 under the fourth appellant and was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1989 and subsequently became Assistant in the year 1994. On reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.01.2006 after completing 35 years of service. The impugned order dated 29.01.1997 was issued by the fourth appellant whereby the respondent was informed that he had been paid an excess amount of Rs.52,662/- by the appellants and the same has to be deducted in a lumpsum. ...
Nachiammal Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Othakadai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Registered Settlement Deed executed by petitioner's husband in her favour vide document No.49 of 1985 dated 23.01.1985 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honourable Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.05.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the settlement deed dated 26.09.1983 (mentioned in his representation as 26.09.1983- but the correct date according to the petitioner is 23.01.1985) was registered as document No.49/1985. It appears that the said document requires payment of deficit stamp duty and the petitioner was informed that notice would be issued in this regard. But, till date, it appears that no action has been taken in the subject matter in issue, notwithstanding the fact that nearly 30 y...
T. Kannan and Another Vs. Piramal Diagnostics Services Private Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.9914 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.660/2016 in C.C. No.373/2012 passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Crl.O.P. No.23056 of 2012: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C. No.373 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court and quash the same.) Common Order: 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as Piramal Diagnostics and Kannan. 2. While Crl.O.P. No.9414 of 2016 is filed seeking to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.660/2016 in C.C. No.373/2012 passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, Crl.O.P. No.23056 of 2012 is filed to call for the records relating to C.C. No.373 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court and quash the same. 3. Kannan was the Sole Proprietor of a Diagnotics ...
M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd., now known as M/s. Saint Gobain Ind ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Common Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in his proceedings in TIN/33511662391/2007-08, TIN/33511662391/2008-09, TIN/33511662391/2009-10, TIN/33511662391/2010-11, TIN/33511662391/2011-12, and quash the order dated 31.08.2015, passed therein and further direct the first respondent to appoint a higher official to personally inspect and decide the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefit of input tax credit in respect of the disputed items which are used directly in the manufacture of goods including furnace oil and then decide the issue in accordance with law and facts of the case.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and with consent o...
A. Marimuthu and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Sub In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2007 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur.) These petitions have been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2007 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., the respondent registered a case in Cr.No.11/2001 and after completing the investigation has filed a Final Report in C.C.No.174/2007 against the petitioners herein for offences u/s 406 and 120B IPC. The case of the prosecution is best stated in the Final Report, which reads as under: "Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, a corporation incorporated under the Companies of Act during 1949 is a Tamil Nadu Gov...
P.S. Kalaiselvan Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to demarcate and fix the boundary of the petitioner's property situated in Survey No.364/6A in old Patta No.535, New patta No.2432 at Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed. 3. It comes to be known that the petitioner had submitted a representation as early as on 31.10.2015 before the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Periyur Taluk, Madurai District praying for measurement of his property in Sy.No.364/6A, measuring an extent of 7 ares in patta No.2432 at Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. The petitioner had paid proper fee of Rs.100 on 10.10.2015 for fixing boundary and demarcation of the property. Unfortunately, the said representation of the p...
Umamaheshwari and Another Vs. State through, The Sub Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police. 2. The petitioner in both the Crl.O.Ps., are the de-facto complainant in Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8218 of 2016, she gave a complaint on 18.04.2016 against the respondents 2 and 3 with the first respondent police stating that on 17.04.2016 the respondents 2 and 3 damaged t...
Sathya Vs. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgement of the learned II Additional Sessions Court, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.66 of 2012, dated 12.12.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The second accused was one Appu @ Shanmugam. They stood charged for the offence under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC. 2. By judgment, dated 12.12.2014, the trial court acquitted the second accused from both the charges and acquitted the appellant / first accused from the charge under Section 120-B IPC, however, convicted her under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in bri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »