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.
A. Lakshmi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai District and Oth ...
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 dispose of the Petitioner's representation, dated 09.10.2015 within the stipulated period.) 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, her father Ayyavu died and left behind him the properties comprising in Survey Nos.61/1B, 61/2A2A, 61/2A2C, 61/3, situated at Parapathi Village, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District. Her father died intestate on 08.04.2002 and in fact, the Second Respondent / Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, had issued a Legal heir Certificate on 18.02.2009. In fact, she is entitled to get her share from her father's property. 5. The stand of the Petitioner is that her co-brothers fabricated forged documents and executed General Power of Attorney, in f...
J. Selvakumar Vs. The Director, Higher Education, Chennai and Others
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 Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent dated 7.9.2015(for issuance of Transfer Certificate) and to quash the same and consequently to direct the third respondent to permit the Petitioner to continue his studies in B.E.(Mechanical) Second year.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M. Murugesan and Another U. Gandhiraj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 13.05.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2520/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.) 1. The respondent herein, in order to exercise the powers of inspection under Section 82 of the Co-operative Societies Act, wanted the petitioners herein to produce documents (24) within a period of seven days, as per the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2520/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi dated 13.05.2016. This order is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The petitioners are described as revision petitioners and the respondent is described as Inspecting Authority. 3. This revision petition has been filed by the Secretary and President of Q1238 Vilathur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, respectively, seeking to set aside the order dated 13.05.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2520/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 4. Before the Judi...
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD), Chennai Vs. The Pio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.6.2008 in O.P.Nos.77, 78 and 79 of 1999, passed by the learned single Judge.) Common Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. These Original Side Appeals are directed against the common order, dated 16.6.2008, passed in O.P.Nos.77 to 79 of 1999, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed O.P.Nos.77 to 79 of 1999, under Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, praying to set aside the common award, dated 28.10.1997, passed by the Arbitrator. 3. It is averred in all the Original Petitions that the Government of Tamil Nadu have decided to execute water supply project to three cities, namely, Coimbatore, Madurai and Salem. The appellant/petitioner has given necessary contract to the respondent to execute all the works and the contract has been signed by both parties, on 02.06.1988....
V.B.R. Menon Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in the impugned Final Assessment Order No.AEE/OandM/Porur/F.APTS/D.No.105/15-16, dated 02.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to refund the Compounding Fee of Rs.4,000/- and the Penalty of Rs.52,239/- with interest @ 18% from the date of receipt of the same to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Final Assessment Order No.AEE/OandM/Porur/F.APTS/D.No.105/15-16, dated 02.06.2015 passed by the 1st respondent, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to refund the Compounding Fee of Rs.4,000/- and the Penalty of Rs.52,239/- wi...
G. Vasudevan Vs. The Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal in SA 12727/B/2015 dated 18.03.2016 filed under Right to Information Act.) 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 1 to 3. 4. According to the petitioner, his appeal/complaint filed under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is pending on the file of the first respondent/Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai till date and hence, he has preferred the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the first respondent/ Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai to dispose of his appeal/complaint in S.A.No.12727/B/2015, dated 18.03.2016, within a time to be determined by this Court. 5. ...
Chockalingam and Another Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Office of t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and 11.07.2016 to issue patta in the name of the Petitioner, for the lands in S.No.434/21 and S.No.434/31, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 72 cents, situated at Pudhukudiruppu, Shanmuganathapuram Post, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivagangai District within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, 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, he had purchased the land in S.Nos..434/21, 431/29 and S.No.434/31, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 72 cents, situated at Pudhukudiruppu, Shanmuganathapuram Post, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivagangai District from one Manickam Chettiar, in the year 1980 by way of registered sale deed, dated 19.3.1980. Su...
Chellappan Vs. The State by Inspector of Police Malayampalayam Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 16.04.2009 made in S.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is sole accused in S.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Erode. He stood charged for offences under Sections 449 and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 16.04.2009, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC (Fine not imposed by the Trial Court). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ramasa...
Chellappa @ Arunachalam and Others Vs. Hari Narayanan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.108 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, dated 18.06.1999 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottai, dated 24.04.1996.) 1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.108 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, dated 18.06.1999 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottai, dated 24.04.1996. 2. The plaintiffs, who lost the appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, have come forward with this second appeal stating that they filed a suit for partition and also for specific performance and also for future profits stating that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Sudalai Pandaram. Sudalai Pandaram is having a son viz., Arunachala Pandaram. He has two sons viz., Veer...
Ashok Kumar Sethi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A , Chennai in I.T.SSA.No.95/MDS/2003 for the assessment year : Block period 1.4.1990 to 11.1.2001 dated 29.5.2006, received on 22.6.2006.) D. Krishnakumar, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A , Chennai in I.T.SSA.No.95/MDS/2003 for the assessment year : Block period 1.4.1990 to 11.1.2001 , dated 29.5.2006. 2. A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the appellant on 10.1.2001 and the same was concluded on 16.4.2001. During the search operation, cash of Rs.2,51,75,309/- forming part of Fixed Deposit Certificates worth Rs.5,98,75,340/- and 3031.5gms of jewellery were seized. In response to the notice dated 1.6.2001 issued under section 158BC of the Act to file the Block Return within 16 days, the ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »