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.
Easwaran Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Erode District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction imposed by judgment dated 16.12.2015 made in S.C.No.116 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Needhimandram (Magalir Fast Track Court, Erode), by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.116 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Magalir Fast Track Court), Erode. One Mr.Raghunath was the second accused in the case. The Trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the first accused and a charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against the second accused. By judgment dated 16.12.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, however, convicted the first accused/appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the a...
Manimegalai Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Exc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.02/2016, dated 29.02.2016, in detaining the detenue under Section 2(f) of Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Detenue namely Selvakumar S/o.Ramasamy, Male, aged about 39 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu - Selvakumar, who is under detention, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, dated 29 February, 2016, in Cr.M.P.No.02/2016, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sex...
Kumar Vs. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- applied for the Petitioner's daughter namely Sindhuja, B.E. Electronic Communication Engineering Course for the period of 2015-2019 in Hindusthan College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, his daughter Sindhuja had completed her Higher Secondary Education during the month of March 2015 and she secured 880/1200 marks through SMB Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Dindigul. After completing her Higher Secondary Course in the year 2015, she aspired to joint the course in B.E. Electronic Communication Engineering and hence she joined the Hindusthan College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that he...
A.R. Karuppaiah Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to inspect the property in S.No.260/1A in Kottai Street, Illuppur Village, Pudukkottai District and issue patta by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.07.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. Admittedly, the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.07.2016, is pending before the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In fact, in the said representation, the Petitioner has sought for issuance of patta, in respect of the property bearing S.No.260/1A in Kottai Street, Illuppur Village, Pudukkottai District. As on date, the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.07.2016, is pending without any disposal. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.07.2016, is pending before the Respondent Nos.1 ...
R. Narayanan Vs. The District Registrar, Vellore District and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to entertain any of the transaction in respect of property covered under Document Nos.5675 of 2013, 5676 of 2013 and 5677 of 2013 dated 23.09.2013.) 1. By consent this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased certain items of properties through registered sale deeds dated 23.09.2013 under Doc.Nos.5675 and 5676 of 2013 and sale certificates were issued by the State Bank of India and when it is presented for registration before the second respondent, it was returned on account of the fact that attachment order passed by Civil Court is in subsistence and admittedly, the said attachment order came into being after the sale certificates were presented for registration and despite subsistence of attachment order, there cannot be any impediment on the part of the second respondent to register the ...
A.D. Padmasingh Isaac, Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27(2), 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant for the following: (a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using same or similar mark AACHI MASALA or any other similar Trade Mark or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark AACHI or in relation to any Mineral Water and use the same pouches, packets or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or phonetically similar to the plain...
M/s. Ennore Port Ltd., Chennai Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Order, dated 13.11.2006 made in O.P.No.202 of 2004 and O.P.No.208 of 2006 respectively.) Common Judgment P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These two Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.No.155 of 2008 and O.S.A.No.79 of 2010 are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 13.11.2006 passed in O.P.Nos.202 of 2004 and 208 of 2006. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the Chennai Port Trust, predecessor-in-interest of the Appellant and the first respondent entered into Rock Quarrying and Transportation contract, dated 06.06.1996 to quarry and transport rock required for construction of break waters at Ennore. The rock transported from the quarry was to be stockpile in the port. On account of insufficiency of space and non-removal of the rock, additional stockpile was created within the Port. A claim was made for the costs of cr...
G. Suganthi and Others Vs. Sulochana Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.01.2016 made in I.A.No.367 of 2015 in O.S.No.34 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.) 1. The revision arises against the order of learned III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee, passed in I.A.No.367 of 2015, in O.S.No.34 of 2014 on 28.01.2016. 2. Respondents/Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.34 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, seeking partition and other consequential reliefs. Petitioners/Defendants 7 to 9 filed I.A.No.367 of 2015 seeking rejection of Ex.A44. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such application. Hence, this revision. 3. heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 4. It is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that on 07.09.2009, all family members entered into a partition deed presented at the Joint-2, Su...
I. Sankaramani Vs. V. Rajaraman I.A.S., The District Collector, Virudh ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent herein for the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.22275 of 2015, dated 11.12.2015 under the Contempt of Courts Act.) 1. It is brought to the Notice of this Court that laid gravel road was removed, as per the Letter in Na.Ka.A2/15/16, dated 28.07.2016, issued by the Block Development Officer, Rajapalayam, addressed to the Respondent / Contemnor / the District Collector, Virudhunagar District. 2. Also that the Respondent / Contemnor / the District Collector incharge had also furnished a report, dated 26.07.2016 interalia stating that the laid gravel road on Petitioner's patta land in Survey Nos.508/1 and 528/3 was removed and the same is recorded. 3. As such, nothing survives for further adjudication in the subject matter in issue and accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. 4. In view of the fact that the Contempt Petition is closed by this...
Thilagam Gowthaman, Represented by Her Power of Attorney, M. Seenivasa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of declaration declaring that the cancellation deed registered by the first respondent in document No.4682/2012, dated 12.4.2012 as illegal, void and against the provisions of the Registration Act.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 22.7.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....