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.
Thamaraipandi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue the ration card said to be cancelled by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner by considering and disposing of petitioner's application dated 9.9.2015 within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, one of his daughters viz., Jeya got married and went to bridegroom's home. With a view to delete her name from the petitioner's ration-card and to include her name in her husband's ration card, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent/Taluk Supply Officer, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, informed the petitioner that his ration card itself has ...
Kundumalai Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned auction notice dated 13.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.A1/400/2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct the public auction after issuing notice to all the intending tenderers and also after issuing public notice.) 1. Mr. Kundumalai, challenges the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 issued by the second respondent, namely, Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Tirupuvanam, Sivagangai District, wherein, the second respondent has decided to conduct for public auction with regard to 'pay and use toilet' in daily market at Sivagangai District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner is anxiously waiting for participation in the pubic auction, the second respondent has issued the auction notice only to the selected bidders of his own choice fixing the...
M/s. TVS Finance and Services Ltd., formerly known as M/s. Harita Fina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal is preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of this Court dated 8.8.2008 in O.P.No.846 of 2007.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed in O.P.No.846 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein and M/s.Anand Agros Limited have entered into a hire purchase agreement and since there is a default in paying monthly installment, as per agreement, the appellant has invoked arbitration proceedings, wherein the respondents 1 to 5 have also been impleaded as guarantors of the principal debtor. The arbitrator after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side has passed an award dated 26.2.2007 and the same has been challenged by the respondents 1 to 5 herein, as petitioners in O.P.No.846 of 2007 on the file of this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the divergent contentions raised on ...
T. Palaniappan Vs. City Union Bank Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 28.03.2016 in Appln.Nos.7450 and 7451 of 2015.) 1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 28.03.2016 in Appln.Nos.7450 and 7451 of 2015. 2. The appellant herein is the applicant in A.Nos.7450 and 7451 of 2015 filed before this Court. A.No.7450 of 2015 was filed to grant leave to the appellant to institute the suit against the first respondent/first defendant and A.No.7451 of 2015 was filed to grant leave to institute the suit against all the respondents / defendants. In the plaint, it has been averred that the same has been filed for recovery of money due to him from the defendants in respect of his service with the first defendant-Bank and in respect of unauthorised withdrawal from his Savings Bank Account by the first defendant-Bank. The appellant has stated that he was last working as a Manager...
Gajan @ Gajendran Vs. State Rep By Inspector of Police, Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in S.c.No.55 of 2014 dated 21.07.2013. ) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.55/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 21.07.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. The trial Court ordered to run the above sentences concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with thi...
Karuppaiah Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 26.01.2016 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC and to take action against the accused in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 26.01.2016 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner against the proposed accused, enquiry has been conducted and it has been subsequently closed. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed. The 2nd respondent is directed to furnish...
J. Ramaraj Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Keeranoor Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge sheet in Sessions Case No.148 of 2009 pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.124 of 2008 has been registered under Sections 307 and 379 (N.P.) of IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned Mahila Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District, which was taken cognizance by the Sessions Judge in S.C.No.148 of 2009. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's wife had mo...
The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Chennai Vs. S.M. Ramachandran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer in A.S.No.227 of 2016:- Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree, dated 27.4.2015, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, in L.A.O.P.No.2415 of 1998.) Common Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. These Appeal Suits have been directed against the common award dated 27.4.2015 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.2415, 2399, 2401, 2402, 2404, 2405, 2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2416, 2339, 2343, 2344, 2345, 2347, 2349, 2350, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426, 2436, 2443, 2453, 2457, 2491, 2340, 2342, 2346, 2348, 2394, 2396, 2398 and 2427 of 1998, by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Sub Court, Ponneri. 2. The appellant herein, as Land Acquisition Officer, has acquired the lands situate in Neithavoyal Puzhuthivakkam Village, Thiruvottiyur, Ponneri Taluk and awarded a compensation of Rs.250/- per cent. Against the quantum, various references have been made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same have been taken on file in L.A....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
1. This application is filed by the applicant / second defendant for amending the written statement. 2. The Civil Suit is filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff, which is the Food Corporation of India, based on differential costs. 3. The case of the applicant / second defendant is that the respondent / plaintiff had called for tender of damaged food grains fixing the minimum price per Quintal. The second defendant was one of the participants. It is the case of the second defendant that after the opening of the tender, the plaintiff had reduced the minimum reserve price, which was not communicated to the participants. It is stated that any change in the tender terms and conditions should have been communicated to the participants, before the opening of the tender or earlier tender should be recalled and fresh tender should be called for. As the minimum reserve price was not quoted by the plaintiff, which was not within the knowledge of the second defendant, the tender transaction ...
A. Thambidurai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigila ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 19.02.2016.) 1. Thambidurai, a Kovilpatti man, wants to axe his sister Ponnuthayee / 3rd respondent and also her husband Ponraj. 2. Because of their internal fight, now Thittankulam came to lime light. Petitioner alleges large scale swindling of panchayat funds by the third respondent / present President of Thittankulam Panchayat, her husband / Ex-President and certain Panchayat officials. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said couples in connivance with the Panchayat officials indulged in large scale irregularities and misappropriation of funds. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that already there was an unholistie alliance between the petitioner and one Senthilkumar. Earlier, they engineered Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2016. That was over. Now, their new adventure is the present p...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »