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.
Usha @ Usharani and Another Vs. Auroville Foundation, rep.by its Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in STC No.30 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.30 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. 2. The short facts of this case are as follows: 2.1 Auroville Foundation and Usha @ Usha Rani (A1) entered into a Deed of Exchange dated 16.06.1995, under which two properties were exchanged between them, by virtue of which, Auroville Foundation became the absolute owner of X property and Usha (A1) became the owner of Y property. For the reasons best known to them, they did not exchange the original title deeds which remained in the custody of the respective parties. While so, Usha (A1) executed a Gift Deed dated 16.05.2012 in respect of X property belonging to Auroville Foundation in favour of her husband Devadass (A2), taking undue advan...
M/s. Visalakshi Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Srithar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 11.04.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016 which is decided on 11th April 2016. In paragraph '4' of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is pointed out that the factual controversy can be better resolved by the petitioner by approaching the appellate authority. 2. The apprehension of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that if any appeal is preferred, it is beyond the limitation period as the time provided by the statute has already expired. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has rightly drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the appellate authority was directed to consider the matter on merits. 4. Hence, it goes without saying that the competent authority has to cons...
S.V. Raghunath Vs. The Inspector of Police,Thenkasi
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 petitioner based on the complaint submitted by one Raja under the guise of enquiry.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioner based on the complaint submitted by one Raja under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, the petitioner's presence is absolutely required for interrogation in respect of the complaint submitted by the Manager of Aarthi Scan Centre. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation; but according to the case of the petitioner herein, it is just a case of cash missing from his hands, while he was travelling. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the appearance of the petitioner is required for interrogati...
Anand and Another Vs. State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Coimbator ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeals against the judgment, dated 09.04.2013, made in S.C.No.272 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. Appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.272 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Tiruppur. Both of them stood charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment, dated 09.04.2013, the trial Court found both the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Murugesan working as a mason in Tiruppur town. Both the deceased and the accused had no permanent residence. The deceased and A-2 used to sleep under a tamarind tree near T...
Malaiyayee Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.174 of 2015 dated 24.10.2015 and to file a final report under the supervision of the 1st respondent.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.174 of 2015 dated 24.10.2015 and to file a final report under the supervision of the 1st respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The petitioner is stated to be an agricultural coolie. It is alleged that on 24.10.2015, when the petitioner's husband and his friends were riding two wheel motor cycles, one container lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's husband Chandran; that the deceased died on the spot. On the same day, a complaint has been preferred and a case has been registered in Crime No.174 of 2015 for an offence under Sect...
M/s. South India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Kamarajar Port Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent comprised in RFQ bearing No. KPL/DBFOT/01/2015 July 2015 and consequent notice dated 22.12.2015 and letter bearing No. EPL/OP/3.12/74 dated 08.01.2016 and quash the same in so far as the RFQ condition set forth in Clause 7.4.1.2 prescribing Net Tangible Assets to be not less than Rs.580 crores and the rejection of the petitioner's RFQ on that basis as being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently, direct the Respondent to forthwith issue the RFP document to the Petitioner and permit it to participate in the tender process and evaluate its bid on merits by considering its qualifications for the purposes of evaluation of financial capability as per the audited statements of the statutory Auditor filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the prescription for determining...
Veeramani Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Mahila Sessions Court, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.212 of 2012 dated 30.01.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.212 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, District Mahila Sessions Court, Cuddalore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 294-b and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 30.01.2013, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. No default sentence was imposed. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 294-b of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (a)The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Kalaiselvi. The accused is...
J. Sasikala Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), based on the complaint lodged by one Sankar as against the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted and it has been subsequently closed. He has further submitted that since the complaint has already been closed, there is no scope for harassment at all. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Sivanpandian Vs. The Home Secretary, Chennai and Others
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 nos 1 to 4 to strictly instruct the respondent no.5 for not to prevent the petitioner and his family members from catching fishes in Karairuppukulam, Karaiuppu, Tirunelveli District and not to harass the petitioner and his family members by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 21.04.2016.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to strictly instruct the respondent no.5 not to prevent the petitioner and his family members from catching fishes in Karairuppukulam, Karaiuppu, Tirunelveli District and also not to harass the petitioner and his family members; that a representation dated 21.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents 1 to 4 and hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that few cases are pending against t...
U. Ravi Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ambur Assessment Circle, Vello ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11098 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017.) Rajiv Shakdher, J. 1. Issue notice. Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, accepts notice. 2. With the consent of counsels for parties, the captioned appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. By virtue of this appeal, challenge is laid by the appellant to the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.2017. The learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, preferred by the appellant, solely on the ground that there is an alternative remedy available to him. The appellant, being aggrieved, has preferred the captioned appeal. 4. It is the case of the appellant that, what was articulated in the Writ Petition was that the Assessment Order passed in the appellant's case was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as it, inter alia relied, upon the provisions of Section 19(20) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Act 2006 (in sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »