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.
M/s. Neycer India Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer in C.M.A.Nos.488 to 491 of 2016: Appeals under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Final Order Nos.40455 to 40458 of 2014 dated 30/7/2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.) Common Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. M/s.Neycer India Limited, Tiles Division, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry 605 005 has filed four appeals, viz., E/40221 to 40224 of 2014 and four Stay Application Nos.E/Stay/40363 to 40366/2014 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, in Appeal Nos.183 to 186 of 2013 (P) dated 21/11/2013, the appellant has sought for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the operation of the orders passed in Appeal Nos.183 to 186 of 2013. While disposing of the stay applications, CESTAT, Madras, has directed the appellant to deposit a sum of 3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only), within a period of six weeks. For non compliance o...
Sudha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, Inspector of Police, Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 r/w 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.26 of 2013, dated 03.01.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.26 of 2013 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. She was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 03.01.2014, the trial court convicted and sentenced her to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Gokulraj, hardly aged about four years. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. The deceased was born to P.W.1 and his first wife, Mrs. Shanthi. After the birth of the deceased, ...
Murugan Vs. The Tahsildar, Thanjavur District
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 respondents to grant patta for petitioner's house site situated in Natham Puramboku land situated at Door No.1-A, Eruthukkaara Street, Melamaruthuvakkudi, Aduthurai, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District considering the petitioner's representation dated 4.4.2016 within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. It is the stand of the Petitioner is that originally his father had acquired the Natham poromboke property 50 years ago and he was in exclusive possession and occupation of the said property by putting up a thatched house. In fact, all the documents such as ration card and electricity bill were issued in his father's name and the property tax was also assessed in his father's name. His father died in the year 2005 leaving behind him the petitioner a...
M. Palani @ Pandian Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.04.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.5248 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant against the award dated 06.04.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.5248 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Background of the facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.01.2004 at about 16.00 hrs. While the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-K-6508 at Lyoyds Road, Royapettah, the respondent transportation Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3269 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle. Due to such accident, the claimant sustained grievous inj...
S. Venkatesan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and his sister.) Every 2 seconds a girl becomes a child bride. Stop the clock end child marriage - reports international.org/child-marriage. Pleading to stop the marriage of a child with a bleeding heart, the petitioner has approached this Court. Stating that neither he nor his sister Vijayalakshmi is interested in the marriage of Vijayalakshmi with her uncle's (Nagappan) son Vinoth and that his sister being a child should not be married before she attains marriageable age and therefore, the Police must be directed to provide protection to the life and limb of the petitioner as well as his sister, this petition has been filed by one Venkatesan. 2. The father of the petitioner by name Sakthivel, on the other hand, has filed a complaint alleging that her daughter Vijayalaks...
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited Vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer : Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying a judgment and decree for: (a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations infringing plaintiff's registered trademark VENIZ by use of deceptively similar trademark VENZ or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademark VENIZ or in any other manner whatsoever. (b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant's, their distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under them from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for their stocking, adver...
Miriyam Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Cheranmahadev ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District to conduct a joint trial with regard to the cases in C.C.No.136 of 2010 and C.C.No.137 of 2010 pending on its file.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District to conduct joint trial with regard to the cases in C.C.No.136 of 2010 and C.C.No.137 of 2010. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who takes notice for the first respondent. 3. It is not in dispute that both cases in C.C.No.136 of 2010 and C.C.No.137 of 2010 have arisen out of one and the same incident. When the cases have been arisen out of one and the same incident, it is the duty of the trial Court to conduct joint trial. 4. It is represented that the petitioner herein has filed Crl.O....
N. Ganesan Vs. Vadivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the judgment and decreetal order in I.A.No.161 of 2012 in O.S.No.102 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode, dated 28.08.2012.) 1. Heard the arguments of M/s.R.Sripriya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and Mr.V.R.Anna Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. It is the submission of Ms.R.Sripriya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the original plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 2011 has filed the suit for specific performance of an alleged reconveyance agreement dated 26.11.2002 before the District Munsif Court, Palacode, on 24.11.2005 without paying the proper Court fees and without any Petition to take leave of the Court for payment of the deficit Court Fee under Section 149 of C.P.C and so the Court has returned the Plaint for want of payment of deficit Court fee. It was further submitted by the learned coun...
Boopathy Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 10.03.2014 in S.C.No.206 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.) S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.206 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. A.2/ Mrs. Saraswathy is his mother. A.1 stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 I.P.C., and A.2 stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 r/w.34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 10.03.2014, the trial Court acquitted A.2 from both the charges. However, convicted the appellant/A.1 for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and acquitted him from the charge under Section 498(A) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A.1/appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief...
M.S. Rajasekaran Vs. The Managing Director, Chennai and Others
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 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal dated 04.04.2016 to refund the deposited amount of Rs.6, 25, 894/- to the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the Proprietor of Palanikumar Transports, Pattukottai and in the year 1990, he was appointed as a Transport Contractor by the 2nd respondent/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region through open tender. Since then, the transport contract is being extended periodically. 4. During the course of business, the 2nd respondent/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region, directed the petitioner to transport 550 bags of rice from Ammanpettai Modern Rice Mill to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thiruvall...
- ‹ Prev
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- Next ›
- Last »