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.
K. Ponnusamy Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Supp ...
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 3rd or 4th respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2016 with regard to issue the new family card or ration card.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he had applied for a new family card/ration card before the third respondent in petition No.695/2015 dated 10.06.2015. Also, he made a representation on 23.05.2016 for the purpose of getting new family card to the 3rd and 4th respondents through registered post and acknowledgement due. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the third and fourth respondents had not taken any steps in the subject matter in issue. Also, he had sent a reminder to the third respondent through RPAD on 07.06.2016. The real grievance of the petitioner is that his elder sons are joining the school during the acade...
Umamaheshwari Vs. State through, The Sub Inspector of Police and Other ...
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.) 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 the drainage pu...
Indeco Ventures Limited, Chennai Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Sections 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956 for confirming the reduction of paid-up equity share capital of the petitioner company duly approved by the equity shareholders of the petitioner at the Extra-ordinary General Meeting thereof held on 28.08.2015 at Chennai; to this end all inquiries and directions necessary and proper be made and given; to approve the form of minute and to dispense with the words "And Reduced" pursuant to the reduction.) 1. This Company Petition is filed under Sections 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking an approval of the reduction of paid-up equity share capital of the petitioner company duly approved by the equity shareholders of the petitioner at the Extra-ordinary General Meeting thereof held on 28.08.2015 at Chennai; to this end all inquiries and directions necessary and proper be made and given; to approve the form of minute and to dispense with the words "And Reduced" pursuant to the reduction. 2. It is seen that th...
Azraf Ali and Others Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Vellore Sou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
S. Nagamuthu,J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.138 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Vellore. The first accused stood charged for the offences under Section 120-B and 302 read with 109 IPC. The accused 2, 3 and 5 stood charged for the offence under Sections 120-B, 341 and 302 IPC. The fourth accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 120-B, 341, 302 and 324 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment, dated 11.03.2015, convicted and sentenced all the accused, as detailed below : ad>AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1 to A.5120-B I.P.C.Life imprisonment each and to pay of Rs.2,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.A.1302 r/w.109 I.P.C.Life imprisonment and to pay of Rs.3,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.A.2 to A.5341 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for six months each.A.2 to A.5302 I.P.C.Life imprisonment each and to pay of Rs.3,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for s...
T. Selvan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Boothapandi
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 respondent to release the sale deed vide No.P27/2015, P75/2015 for lands situated in Sy.No.658/1, 658/2, 658/3, 659/1, 659/2, 658/6, 661/2 at Alagiyapandiyapuram Village by duly registering the same as per the Registration Act and vide the petitioner's representation dated 09.06.2016 within the time frame as 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. According to the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order in directing the respondent to release the sale deed vide Nos.P27/2015, P75/2015 for lands situated in Sy.Nos.658/1, 658/2, 658/3, 659/1, 659/2, 658/6, 661/2 at Alagiyapandiyapuram Village, by duly registering the sale deed as per the Registration Act, through his representation dated 09.06.2016, within the time determined by this Cou...
G. Jayaparakash Vs. L. Balakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30-06-2011 made in O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Judge No.1, Coimbatore.) A. Selvam, J 1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree dated 30-06-2011 passed in O.S.No.168 of 2009 by the Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Judge No.1, Coimbatore. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have instituted O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Trial Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint a new Trustee in respect of the School, mentioned in the plaint wherein the present appellant has been shown as first defendant. 3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the School, mentioned in the plaint is situate in survey No.183/1A Sirukalandhai Village and the same has been managed from the year 1958 by one Society viz., Jakkarpalayam Araneri Kazhagam...
Aruldoss Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, made in S.C.No.136 of 2011 dated 12.03.2014.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.136 of 2011 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 12.03.2014, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased Mr.Sarangapani was a driver in the State Transport Corporation Bus plying between Mayiladuthurai and Panthanallur Village. One Mrs.Thavamani used to travel in the said bus as a passenger frequen...
D.V. Subburam Vs. State represented by The Superintendent of Police, V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents to execute the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents to execute the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2016. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that already a case has been registered under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC in Crime No.104 of 2016. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
J. Avathy and Others Vs. The Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse all the original certificates that the petitioners in all writ petitions had submitted before the 2nd and 3rd respondents at the time of admission.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners filed separate writ petitions, seeking a direction to the second and third respondents to issue all the original certificates that they have submitted before the second and third respondents at the time of admission. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioners having completed M.B.B.S. Course in University of Kerala in the Academic year 2005-2011, 2007-2013 and 2005-2011 respectively, did their internship in Medical College at Tiruvananthapuram and obtained necessary certificates on 24.02.2012, 05.12.2013 and 02.01.2012 respectively, and thereafter they have obtained the Faculty of Medicine o...
Nadathara Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs. Kerala Co-operativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Co-operative Bank seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent by exercising the powers conferred to the Ombudsman under Section 69 A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter called the Act , by which the petitioner was directed to return the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest to the 2nd respondent. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; the 2nd respondent, who was an employee of the petitioner bank has caused heavy loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.13,64,480/-, as evident from various statutory audit reports. Thereupon the 2nd respondent has executed Ext.P2 agreement in favour of the petitioner bank undertaking to indemnify the bank to the loss suffered consequent to his conduct and action in the day to today affairs of the bank. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner bank that since as per the audit, more than Rs.13,00,000/- was detected as the loss ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »