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.
Chandran and Another Vs. Senthurpandian and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 106 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil.) 1. This appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. 2. The appellants are petitioners in I.A.No.144 of 2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Sankarankovil. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.289 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. The respondents are defendants in the suit. Respondents in I.A.No.144 of 2015, first appeal and CMA. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: (i) The appellants filed O.S.No.289 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil for a declaration that suit properties are their absolute properties and for permanent injunction re...
M/s. The Computer Consultants, Hosur Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.305 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the first respondent in TIN : 33653362045/2010-11, dated 28.09.2015, and consequential proceedings in TIN : 33653362045/2010-11, dated nil, signed on 28.09.2015, and to quash the same as ultraviresunder the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petition and the parties are one and the same, these Writ Petitions have been taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr.V.Sundareeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer, under the erstwhile provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act), and at present, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006. The challenge in these Writ Pe...
K. Senthil Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Ganapathy Sub-Registrar Office, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Letter dated 10.04.2015 in Na.Ka.No.234/2015 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to accept the General Power of Attorney dated 09.04.2015 executed by the petitioner in favour of A. Shanmugam and register the same.) 1. The petitioner calls in question the validity of the letter dated 10.04.2015 sent by the first respondent by which the first respondent refused to register the power of attorney deed dated 09.04.2015 presented by the petitioner for registration in favour of one Arumugam. 2. The facts which led to filing of the present writ petition and which are germane and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:- (i) The petitioner is the owner of several lands situate in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, including the land in Survey No.5...
Nandhakumar and Another Vs. State by, Inspector of Police, Namakkal Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Common Prayer :- Criminal Appeals filed under Section 372 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.27 of 2012, dated 21.02.2014.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.27 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 21.02.2014, the trial court convicted them, under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 364 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in def...
C. Gani Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to instruct the second respondent to consider the representation dated 21.07.2015 submitted by Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and in consequence to dispose of the first respondent's letter No.Na.Ka.Aa.2/711/2015, dated 28.07.2015 for issuing patta to the Petitioner's house in Survey No.179/1C.) 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 is residing in his own house bearing S.No.179/1C, V.Nangoor, Kariaptti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, for the past 15 years. Before constructing his house, he had resided in a mud wall roofed house for more than 50 years on the same house-site. Apart from that, his fore-fathers were staying in the same house for more than 100 years. As the house-site of the Petitioner's house is a 'Grama Natham...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the order dated 07.03.2012, made in R.E.P.No.146/2010 in M.C.O.P.No.879/2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.) 1. 'Life' does not mean a mere animal existence and this term occuring in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been expounded and expanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court in a long line of decisions and we have travelled a long way from Gopalan to Gandhi (A.K.Gopalan's case AIR 1950 SC 27) to (Menaka Gandhi's case AIR 1978 SC 597). 2. Motor Vehicle Accidents are on the rise everyday due to numerous reasons and loss of life and bodily injury in accident case is ever increasing and the victim can never be restored back to his original shape and live his life normally after he suffers an accident. For this kind of a suffering, the only solace the law can offer to him is payment of...
Refex Energy Limited, by its Managing Director Vs. Union of India, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, as ultravires Article 14 of the constitution of India.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner company to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as the MSMED Act), as ultravires Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner company placed three work orders, viz. (1) REL/COMET/PO-04/11-12, dated 03.06.2011, (2) REL/Vituza/PO-03/11-12, dated 16.06.2011 and (3) REL/Vituza/PO-09/11-12, dated 28.07.2011, with the 2nd respondent for the supply of Galvanized Steel Structures/Solar Module Mounting Structures. Subsequently, since the 2nd respondent made a further demand, without making any correlative supplies, certain di...
Gopi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary of Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.24/Goonda/C2/2015 dated 04.06.2015 against the brother of the petitioner, Yuvaraj, son of Ganapathy, aged 22 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem, under Act 14/1982, as a GOONDA and to set aside the same and direct the second respondent to produce the body or the person of the detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem.) V. Bharathidasan, J. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.24/Goonda/C2/2015, dated 04.06.2015, detaining the detenu, namely, Yuvaraj, aged about 22 years, S/o Ganapathi, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ...
K. Karuppasamy Vs. The District Registrar, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for records relating to the General power of Attorney dated 15.12.2011 bearing document number 1552 of 2011 in Book 4 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) 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, which runs as under: As the deed which is sought to be quashed has been quashed by the 1st and 2nd respondents by order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed. No costs....
The Manager,Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Thahirabanu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims (Addl.District Judge) Ramanathapuram, and allow this appeal.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company calling in question the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011. 2. The relevant facts are that on 14th September 2009, at about 6.00 a.m, the deceased, who was working with one of the local Colleges at Adirampattinam, as a Professor in Chemistry was proceeding on his two wheeler when the offending vehicle, a Tipper lorry (earth moving vehicle) caused the fatal accident, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. The deceased was in prime of his life as by the time of his premature death he was of 46 years age. His wife and his three children...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »