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.
Kolandasamy Vs. Kuttiammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.11.2004 made in A.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.07.2004 made in O.S.No.153 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Perundurai.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.11.2004 made in A.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.07.2004 made in O.S.No.153 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Perundurai. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.153 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Perundurai is the appellant herein. 3. The suit was filed for permanent injunction as against the respondents / defendants. 4. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit. 5. The ...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Kaliyamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the fair and the decreetal orders dated 14.06.2011, passed in I.A.No.59 of 2009, in O.S.No.530/2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Villupuram.) 1. The instant Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram, in I.A.No.59 of 2009 in O.S.No.530 of 2004, whereby the Application seeking condonation of delay of 1414 days in filing the Petition to set aside the Ex-parte Decree in O.S.No.530 of 2004, has been allowed. 2. This Court has heard arguments advanced by Mrs.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and no one appeared for the Respondent. 3. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the Trial Court erred in allowing the Application filed by the Respondent seeking condonation of delay of 1414 days in filing the Application to set aside the Ex-parte decree passed ag...
Sathiskumar Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellant is A.2 in S.C.No.107 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Erode. A.1 was one Mr.Soundararajan. They stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 392 and 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 12.05.2014, the trial Court convicted both the accused for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., 392 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC and to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 392 IPC and to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.2 is before this Court with this Crimin...
Ramar @ Ramakrishnan Vs. The State, rep.by Inspector of Police Avaniya ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: (in C.R.L.RC(MD) No.111 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.377 of 2015 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madurai and quashing the same. (in C.R.L.RC(MD) No.137 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.376 of 2015 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madurai and quashing the same.) 1. As both the revisions are connected, this common order is being passed. 2. The revision petitioner, who is A1 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has directed Crl.R.C.(MD) No.137 of 2016 to revise the Order of the Trial Court dismissing his Cr.M.P.No.376 of 2015 filed to exempt him from surrendering before the Trial Court to reca...
P. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent not to harass him in the guise of investigation.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner herein in the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the presence of the petitioner is required only for the purpose of interrogation, as a case has been registered against him. 4. If the presence of the petitioner is required for interrogation, the respondent is directed to issue notice/summon fixing the place, date and time of enquiry/interrogation and to let off the petitioner after the closure of enquiry. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent assured that except following the procedure stated supra, the petitioner shall not be called to the Police Station and this un...
M/s. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai and Others Vs. G. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Cross Objection has been filed under Order XLI, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and award dated 07.09.2010 made in MCOP No.5609 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment: 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the second respondent/Insurance Company has filed this memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. 2. The first and second respondents are the claimants, whereas, the third respondent herein, is the owner of the offending vehicle. Claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the compensation for the death of their son one G.Raja, the respondents 1 and 2 had moved the Claims Tribunal with a claim petition in MCOP No.5609 of 2004. 3. According to the claimants, that on 13.11.2004 at about 00.45 a.m., when their son G.Raja was driving the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN 10 J 5761, a Water Tanker Lorry bearing Registration ...
Kantilal N. Shah, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Vs. The Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records pertaining to the impugned report dated 24.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent in F.No.Court Cases/FSSAI/CHN/Imports/2015 and quash the same and further direct the 1st Respondent to sent appropriate report under the Foods Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the goods covered by bill of entry no.3857867 dated 20.11.2013 for home consumption.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent, who is the authorised officer functioning under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 2. The petitioner had imported Olive Oil from Turkey and filed Bill of Entry dated 20.11.2013. The consignment was examined by the authorised officer and a co...
The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against the order, made in M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.P.No.5663 of 2014, dated 04.07.2014.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. W.A.No.954 of 2014 is filed by the Additional Director General and Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, against the order made in M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.P.No.5663 of 2014, dated 04.07.2014. 2. W.A.No.1056 of 2014 is filed by the Joint Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai, against the order made in M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.P.No.5663 of 2014, dated 04.07.2014. 3. Order challenged in both the appeal is an interim direction, directing the appellants to provisionally release 15.160 Kgs., of Gold Bars to the respondent, seized vide Mahazar, dated 14.10.2013, drawn by the officials of the appellant, from the respondent, Mr.Abhishek Mundhra, at Kamaraj Domestic Terminal, Meenambakkam, Chennai, in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, pending disposal ...
L. Munirathinam Vs. The Director/Commissioner of Treasuries and Accoun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion for the year 2015-2016 and thereby, to direct them to promote the petitioner to the next level as Accountant with all pay benefits.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion for the year 2015-2016 and thereby, to direct them to promote the petitioner to the next level as Accountant with all pay benefits. 3. The petitioner entered into service as Junior Assistant in the Villupuram District Treasury in the year 1997. The petitioner has been issued with a charge memo under Section 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal )Rules. Pursuant to which, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry O...
J. Bill Clinton and Another Vs. The Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction the education loan by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2016.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- Next ›
- Last »