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.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Minor Adithi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the common judgment and decree, dated 29.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975, 978, 977 and 976 of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy.) Cross Objections are filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., to modify the judgment and decree, dated 29.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975 and 976 of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy, by awarding enhanced compensation.) Common Judgment 1. All the four appeals arise out of common Judgment dated 29.9.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.975 to 978 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum FTC-I, Trichy. 2. The claimants filed petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 03.02.2001. The claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos. 975 and 976 of 2001 filed Cross Objection (MD) Nos.20 and 21 of 2014 in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.585...
Thirunavukarasu Vs. The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.420 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. He stood charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Vide Judgment, dated 29.12.2006, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The deceased one Ranganathan is the father of the accused. Both of them were residing at Door No.1/2, Veerasamy Lane, Royapuram, Chennai. There was a property dispute prevailing between them, hence, with a motive to kill his father, the appellant/accused, at about 01.00 a.m., on the intervening night of 19.09.2004 and 20.09.2004, attacked the decease...
Parvathi and Another Vs. Muruhiyalu Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer:- This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.124 of 2001 on the file of the learned first Additional District Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Salem, modifying the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 and made in the suit in O.S.No.351 of 1997 on the file of the learned second Additional District Munsif, Salem.) The judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.124 of 2001 on the file of the learned first Additional District Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem are impugned in this Second Appeal. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.351 of 1997, whereas the 1st respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. The 2nd respondent being the second defendant had passed away. The respondents 3 to 7 have been brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased R2, vide order dated 05.06.2013 and made in the peti...
A. Sethuramayee Vs. The Registrar, The Inspector General of Registrati ...
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 Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2014 to cancel the Document No.622/1995 dated 28.02.1995 registered before the 2nd respondent within a stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. According to the Petitioner, she is the only daughter of her parents and after the demise of her parents, who had acquired properties (through their hard-earned money) at survey No.2731 at Bodi Town, Theni District, Survey No.174/3, Bodi Village, Manavalazhapuram and in survey No.59 at Bodi North Malai Village respectively, a settlement deed dated 30.09.1960 was registered by the petitioner. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that subsequently to her shock and surprise, she came to know that illegal children were born to his father thro...
C. Chelladurai Vs. The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1278 of 2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Theni, dated 27th day of May 2016 and directing the respondent to return the Vehicle Chevarlet Tavera bearing registration No.TN01 Y9837 for interim custody to the petitioner which seized by the respondent Police from the petitioner in Crime No.754 of 2015, on 20.05.2016 and the same was produced before the Court and remanded in R.P.R.No.11 of 2016 pending investigation.) 1. This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)]. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the registered owner of Chevarlet Tavera Car (TN01 Y9837), which has been used in the commission of the offence. The said Car has been seized and has been concerned in this case. 3. The revision pe...
Vikar Reality Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation.) Common Order 1. These company petitions are preferred under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of two transferor companies with the transferee company with effect from 01.04.2014. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure 'D' to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.331 of 2015 is the first transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.332 of 2015 is the second transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.333 of 2015 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there are no secured creditors as far as transferor company No.1 and 2 as well as transferee company are concerned and the certificate of the Chartered Accountant confirming the same is appended as Annexure 'E' to these petiti...
P. Nallathambi and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to prepare the seniority list of Food Safety Officers duly taking note the date of acquiring the qualification as held by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and another v. M.Janarthanam (Civil Appeal No.6660/2011), dated 25.02.2015.) 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 2nd respondent to prepare the seniority list of Food Safety Officers duly taking note the date of acquiring the qualification as held by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and another v. M.Janarthanam (Civil Appeal No.6660/2011), dated 25.02.2015. 3. All the petitioners were initially appointed as Health Inspector Grade-II in the Health and Family Welfare Department in the Directora...
Loganayagi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in order No.1256 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015 against the detenu, namely, Munusamy @ Premkumar, Hindu, aged about 25 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and quash aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother 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 Memo No.1256/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 16.12.2015, detaining the detenu, namely, Munusamy @ Premkumar, aged about 25 years, S/o Jayavel, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offen...
Selvam @ Selvaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 374 r/w 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the First Additional District Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.124 of 2013 dated 04.09.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.124 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. His wife Mrs.Parvathi is the second accused in the case. The first accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC and the second accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the second accused and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted the second accused from all the charges. ...
Anthoniyappa and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners under guise of enquiry on the basis of complaint given by one Manohari except under due process of law and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court.Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry and proceed in accordance with law.Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents and their officials not to harass the petitioner and his family members unnecessarily against law under the guise of enquiry.) 1. Thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »