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.
G. Chrishtopher Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent not to involve in the money transaction between himself and another person and thereby refrain him from harassing the petitioner without any case forthwith.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent not to interfere in the money transaction between himself and another person and thereby refrain him from harassing the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), based on the complaint lodged by one Sree Kumaran as against the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted and it has been subsequently closed on 04.04.2016. He has further submitted that since the complaint has already been closed, there is no scope for harassment at all. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Kaja Mydeen Vs. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(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 survey and fix four boundaries of the Petitioner's land in Ananthoor Village, Ananthoor Group, Thiruvadanai Sub-Registrar Office bearing Patta No.8270 in S.No.143/2B1 measuring an extent of 0.34.5 hectare and 85 cents.) 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 purchased the property bearing Patta No.8270 in S.No.143/2B1 measuring an extent of 0.34.5 hectare and 85 cents situated at Ananthoor Village and Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by means of sale deed, dated 15.3.2013( vide document No.343/13) from one Meera Hussain. It appears that some of the adjacent owners of the Petitioner is endeavouring to encroach his property. Therefore, he made a representation, dated 1.2.2016 and 19.2.2016 to the respondents seeki...
R. Sethuraman Vs. The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Che ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(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 either reimburse a sum of Rs.94,19,250/-(Rupees ninety four lakhs, nineteen thousand and two hundred and fifty only) spent by the Petitioner for fish culture at Periyakulam Tank, Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District or to extend the lease period of the Petitioner for a period of three years and to stop the discharge of sewage, drainage entering into Periyakulam Tank, Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District within the time frame fixed 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, he had spent a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to cleanse the water hycianth accumulated in the tank. Subsequently, on 8.2.2016, he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,15,000/- towards purchase of varieties of fish...
T. Buvaneeswari Vs. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Dindigul Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari by calling records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in U.Mi.Po/Ki/Me/Natha/VaAa/Ke1 LTCT/2015-2016/A.No.-20 dated 26.03.2016 and the consequential proceedings of 3rd respondent made in U.Se.Po/E.Pe/Nath/VaAa/Ko.MaPo/A.No.116/16 dated 27.05.2016 and quash the same). 1. Ms.T.Buvaneeswari, who is running a Crusher Unit in Senkulam Village, Natham, Dindigul District, has come before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings issued by the second and third respondents, by which, she was directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,88,830.90 on the ground that the power-consumption of the crusher unit under B phase was not properly recorded from July 2014 onwards. 2. Assailing the said impugned order issued by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, before issuing the order impugned in this Writ Petition, neither an opportunity of hearin...
Isac Vs. State through the Inspector, Madurai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1381 of 2014, dated 11.04.2014 and to pass appropriate order to return back the passport bearing No.22134044 for the interim custody of this petitioner.) 1. In this revision, the accused challenges the dismissal of his return of passport petition in Cr.M.P.No.1381 of 2014, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. The revision petitioner has become an accused in Crime No.336 of 2012, registered by the Inspector of Police, Annanagar Police Station, Madurai City. As on date, investigation is pending and final report has not been filed. At this juncture, the petitioner filed the said petition seeking return of his passport so as to enable him to go abroad. 3. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 11.04.2014, refused to return the passport on the ground that investigation is pe...
Durai Murugadoss Vs. T. Muthumala and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records in M.C.No.39 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 26.10.2015 and set aside the same.) 1. Actually, this revision is by a father as against his daughter, because he wants this Court to reduce the maintenance amount to his daughter. 2. The daughter is fortunate because her father as well as her mother are employed. Her father is holding B.P.T.Degree. Her mother is employed in a Bank. 3. Considering their respective contentions, while dismissing the claim of maintenance by the second respondent, the Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the daughter / 2nd respondent herein. 4. Dispute arose between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is a family dispute. Now, the child is in the custody of her mother. She is a school going child. 5. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the child can seek maintenance from his / her fat...
C. Manickam Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Tuticorin ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 13.3.2012, pending before him.) 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, there is a dispute between himself and one Duraipandy regarding the identification of the property in question. It is the stand of the Petitioner that in the partition between Duraipandy and his brother Paulraj, 2.25 acres adjoining to his property was allotterd to Duraipandy. In this regard, the Petitioner had given a representation to the first respondent/The District Collector, Thoothukudi District on 2.5.2011 to survey his property and for sub-division.There is no response from the first respondent. Therefore, he sent a letter under Right to Information Act, on 21.9.2011 seeking the result of the Petition....
Shri Coimbatore Jewellers India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent respectively in TIN : 33342782980/2012-13, TIN : 33342782980/2013-14, TIN : 33342782980/2014-15 dated 28.4.2016 and TIN : 33342782980/ 2011-12, TIN : 33342782980/2012-13, TIN : 33342782980/2013-14 and TIN : 33342782980/2014-15 dated 9.5.2016 and quash the same.) Common Order 1. Mr.Manohar Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. Heard both. Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, by consent, the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act, 2006) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of gold ornaments and silver articles...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. According to the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned circular of the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli is highly arbitrary, illegal, void, without jurisdiction and also an unconstitutional one. 3. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the third respondent/Vice Chancellor of the University had appointed a Committee and Inspection Commission of his choice in a clandestine manner in the absence of any statutory powers and therefore, the same is an illegal and void one. 4. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, had failed to consider the fact that only the Syndicate has power to appoint sub-Committee and constitute inspection commission for the purpose of granting affiliation to the colleges. 5. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitione...
Prathiban and Another Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri made in S.C.No.109 of 2011 dated 31.01.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.109 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri. They stood charged for offences under Sections 376 read with 511, 302, 201 and 379 of IPC. By judgment dated 31.01.2013, the trial court convicted them under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence und...