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. Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Secretary (RA), Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.24045 of 2012, dated 09.01.2013.) Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order and judgment rendered in W.P.No.24045 of 2012 on 09.01.2013 by our learned brother Justice R.Sudhakar dismissing the said writ petition. 2. W.P.No.24045 of 2012 is instituted calling in question the orders passed by the Government of India on 27.07.2012 dismissing the revision preferred under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, henceforth referred to as "the Act"), which in turn was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, Chennai on 08.03.2012, rejecting the appeal preferred against the Order-in Original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department, Custom House, Chennai dated 29.10.2010. 3. It appears M/s Komal Enterprises, Fathe Nagar, Hyder...
G. Dillibai Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.08.2015, and to dispose of the same in the light of the circular issued by the first respondent, vide No.67, dated 03.11.2011 ( C.No.52338/C1/2011) within a time frame.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner would state that, her adoptive mother had purchased a land, comprised in Old Survey No.80/1, New Survey No.74/2, admeasuring to an extent of 1.95 cents, in Chendrambakkam Village, then Saidapet Taluk, now Thiruvottriyur Taluk, Trivellore District, by means of a registration, registered as Document No.2403 of 1958, in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Sembiam, dated 02.04.1958, ever since, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same, and during her lifetime, certain portions of land were acquired by the Government by initiation of proce...
Marappa Vs. State by: The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.51 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months and convicting him under Section 201 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.51 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, by judgment dated 29.10.2013. The Trial Court, convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment...
Anthony Manuvel Raj Vs. State rep.by its Inspector of Police, Theni Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in Cr.M.P.No.5 of 2016 dated 2.03.2016 and set aside the same.) 1. This criminal revision has been directed as against the dismissal of the protest petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.5/2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, by his order dated 22.03.2016. 2. This revision arose in the following circumstances : The revision petitioner's father Vedamanickam stated to have owned Tractor No. TN 45 D 5133 and Trailer No.TN 45 D 5331. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, alleging that while his father was bedridden, the accused had forged the signature of his sick father and effected name transfer of the said vehicle in his name. In Crl.M.P.No.1715/2015, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate directed the respondent/Inspector of Police, Theni, to conduct i...
K.V. Kumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police 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 1st respondent to take action upon his representation dated 18.04.2016 and issue a direction to the officials of the 2nd respondent police station not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry without any valid complaint and not to interefere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and his brother Sudalaimuthu relating to their bakery business.) 1. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.04.2016 to the 1st and 2nd respondents, requesting them not to harass him in respect of a civil dispute. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, a case has been registered against the petitioner on 25.04.2016 under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. 4. Learned counse...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd., Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 15.06.2007 in I.T.A.No.2713/Mds/2004.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for brevity, henceforth referred to as Act ), was preferred by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench- C Chennai in I.T.A No.2713/Mds/2004 dated 20.07.2007. 2. M/s TTK Bio-med Limited was manufacturing Rubber Contraceptives (condoms) and Gloves. It entered into an agreement with London International Group PIC for discontinuing their condom business. London International Group PIC is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling rubber contraceptives all over the world on its own and also through its subsidiaries and joint venture companies. In India, it is in joint venture with M/s TTK and Co (Joint venture Company TTK-LIG). Lond...
R. Navaneetha Krishnan and Another Vs. State by The Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur, in S.C.No.103 of 2012.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal are the accused in Sessions Case No.103 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur. They stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, by judgement dated 19.02.2013, convicted the appellants/accused both under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and to undergo 10 years rigours imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Chal...
N. Perumal Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for notional absorption of the petitioner as Forest Watcher on par with his junior S.Samiappan, and for consequential service and monetary benefits and pass orders thereon on or before 30.06.2016.) 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 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for notional absorption of the petitioner as Forest Watcher on par with his junior S.Samiappan, and for consequential service and monetary benefits and pass orders thereon on or before 30.06.2016. 3. The petitioner joined service as Plot Watcher in the year 1983. The petitioner was absorbed as Forest Watcher, on 26.02.2008. The petitioner came to know that his junior, viz., one S.Samiappan, who joi...
T. Pitchaikani Vs. The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravida Welfare), Arupp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/1213/1983 dated Nil-05-2013 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The Petitioner has focussed the instant writ petition before this court seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No. A1/1213/1983 dated Nil - 05-2013 and to quashthe same as an illegal one. 3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with the impugned memorandum order in Na.Ka.No. A1/1213/1983 dated Nil- 05-2013, passed by the respondent/Special Tahsildar (Adhi Diravidar Welfare), Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was informed that he is in occupation of the house and land in S.Nos.30/9, 10, 12, ...
The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 27.09.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.11101 of 2011.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the appeal, the Government dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent/employee by its order containing in G.O.No. 190 Agriculture Department, dated 19th December 2012. 2. In that view of the matter, it is submitted, that no further order is needed in this writ appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »