Chennai Court July 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.
Mohamed Gouse and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Kanchipuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Common Prayer in all Criminal Appeals: These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram in S.C.No.99 of 2004 dated 10.08.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.563 of 2015 is A.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2015 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.89 of 2015 is A.3; the appellants in Crl.A.No.683 of 2015 are A.3 and A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.693 of 2015 is A.5 in S.C.No.99 of 2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:- ad>AccusedSection of lawA.1120(B), 364, 147, 342, 302, 201, 379, 465 r/w 114 and 468 r/w 114 I.P.C.,A.2120(B), 364, 147, 342, 302 r/w 149, 201, 379, 465 r/w 114 and 468 r/w 114 I.P.C.,A.3120(B), 364, 147, 342 and 302 r/w 149, 379 r/w 114, 465 and 468 I.P.C.,A.4120(B), 364, 147, 342, 302 r/w 149, 201, 379, 465 and 468 I.P.C.,A.5120(B), 364, 147, 302 r/w 149, 201 379, 465 r/w 114 and...
M/s. T. Abdul Wahid and Co., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in TIN:3328 0520100/2007-08 dated 28.07.2014, quash the same as erroneous, arbitrary, unreasonable being ultravires of provisions of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner who is a registered dealer under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 [TNVAT Act], has filed these Writ Petitions challenging the orders of assessment dated 28.07.2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 (seven years), by which the first respondent confirmed the proposal made in the notice dated ...
Muniammal Vs. District Collector, Dharmapuri and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to impugned oder passed dated 31.12.2015 in Na.Ka.12307/2015/B2 and quash the same. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order granted by the District Magistrate cum District Collector, Dharmapurigranting permission under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act to enter upon the petitioner's property for the purpose of erecting towers and for laying wires. 2. The petitioner contends that she is the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.198/2J of Somanahalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk to an extent of 0.53 hectares by virtue of sale deed dated 31.12.2007. The respondents 1 to 3 are trying to enter upon the property of the petitioner for the purpose of erecting towers and drawing tower line and therefore the petitioner gave representations to the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 26.05.2015 and 27.06....
Sermadurai Vs. The Thasildar, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue a patta in favour of petitioners based on their representations dated 24.06.2016.) 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 respondent. 4. According to the petitioners, their representations dated 24.06.2016 were addressed to the respondent/Thasildar, Alangulam Taluk, seeking for issuance of patta in respect of Survey No.684/2, measuring an extent of 0.68.0 Hectares, Survey No.683/2A, measuring an extent of 0.32.0 Hectares and Survey No.683/2C, measuring an extent of 0.01.0 Hectares of Iythamkattalai Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioners' father Vadivel Nadur had executed three separate gift deeds in favour of the petitioners on 20.04.2010 and from the date of the said gift deeds they are enjoying the proper...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
T. Raja, J 1. M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, represented through its Deputy General manager (CM), Tallukulam, Madurai, has challenged the impugned order of the respondent dated 20.06.2016, in and by which, the respondent has demanded property tax from the petitioner for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the entire department was controlled by the Ministry of Telecom, under the Government of India. Further, all the properties of the petitioner's undertaking stands only in the name of the Government of India, Ministry of Telecom, even though BSNL was formed as a separate entity, still, it is under the control of Government of India, Ministry of Telecom. Further, the property in question was originally stood in the name of the Central Government and after due procedure, the said property was transferred in the name of the petitioner Company. Therefore, it has to be construed that a...
Umeshkumar and Another Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Erode Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode in S.C.No.143 of 2014 dated 20.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.143 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. The first accused was one Mr.Shankar. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. against the first accused and charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused 2 and 3. During trial, the first accused died and thus the charges against him stood abated. By judgment dated 20.03.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused 2 and 3 (the appellants herein) under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants / accused 2 and 3 are before this C...
Manickam alias Chennappan Vs. Munuswamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer in S.A.SR.No.4004 of 2012 Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2002 passed in A.S.No.60 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 passed in O.S.No.224 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Pennagaram. Prayer in M.P.No.1 of 2015 M.P.No.1 of 2015 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 1-A of C.P.C. To transpose the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.2 of 2012 in S.A.SR.No.4004 of 2012 and record the 2nd petitioner/ 2nd appellant as the legal representative of the deceased first appellant viz., Manickam alias Chennappan in C.M.P.No.2 of 2012 in S.A.SR.No.4004 of 2012.) M.P.No. 1 of 2015 is filed under order 23 Rule 1A of Civil Procedure Code for transposing the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.2/2012 in S.A.SR.No.4004/2012 as the 2nd petitioner/ 2nd appellant and record him as legal representative of the deceased 1st appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case a...
L. Franklin Castrol Vs. G. Muthukumaraswamy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in MCOP No. 84/2007 on the file of the Principal Motor Claims Tribunal(Principal Subordinate Judge), Nagercoil and allow the CMA.) 1. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2007, dated 20.09.2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The respondent filed a claim petition against the appellant, alleging that on 23.11.2006, when he was proceeding in his TVS Scooty in Nagercoil, the appellant's car bearing bearing Registration No.TN 74-7905 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the respondent. In that process, he sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately admitted in a hospital for medical treatment. He filed the petition cla...
V. Ravikumar Vs. S. Ganesh, District Collector, Pudukkottai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the Contemnors/Respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.7766 of 2015, dated 4.6.2015.) 1. Earlier, this Court, on 4.6.2015 in W.P(MD)No.7766 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner, had disposed of the Writ Petition, by directing the Respondents to do the survey in the presence of the Petitioner as well as the other parties. 2. At this stage of hearing of the matter,it is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Fifth Respondent/The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Ponnamaravathy and Taluk, Pudukkottai District that the Fifth Respondent had obtained an order of interim stay in W.P(MD)No.14865 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015,dated 18.08.2015 and the same is in force as on today. As such, it appears that the order, dated 4.6.2015 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.7766 of 2015 is not to be complied with by the concerned official ...
Pandiyarajan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and End ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: IN W.P(MD)No. 5364 of 2016: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first Respondent vide G.O(Pa) No.41, Tourism, Cultural and Endowment(HR3-1) Department, dated 2.3.2016 and to quash the same.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted before this Court that the relief sought for in these Writ Petitions have become infructuous and also made endorsements to that effect. 2. In view of the same, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »