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.
K. Palaniyandi Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District and Ot ...
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 respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate and accept the offerings in all the festivals of Sri Arulmighu Ayyanar Temple situated at Parambur, Pudukkottai District, treating him on par with the other community people by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2016 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 has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to permit him to participate and accept the offerings in all the festivals of Sri Arulmighu Ayyanar Temple situated at Parambur, Pudukkottai District, treating him on par with the other community people by considering t...
R. David Vs. The Executive Officer, Kallukootam Town Panchayat, Kanyak ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2016.) 1. Mr.R.David has come forward with the present Writ Petition stating that his mother one Maria Thangam purchased a house including a vacant site in old S.No.6833, New S.No.736/1 in Lekshmipuram Village, Kallukottam Town Panchayat limits, from one Nagamany, Rasammal and Chellappan, by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 19.02.1998 and thereafter, she sold away the afore-mentioned property to the petitioner. While so, since the second respondent herein disturbed the petitioner with respect to wall belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.10 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Eraniel and the same is still pending. When that being the factual position, the second respondent, without obtaining plan approval from the first...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, dated 06.07.2016, calling upon the Members of the Ward Members of the Village Panchayat to attend a Meeting to find out the views of the Elected Members in respect of the irregularities done by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with by this Court, on the sole ground that as per Section 205 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, (in short 'the Act') there must be seven days clear notice to be given to the Village Panchayat President concerned. In the present case, notice dated 06.07.2016 was served on the petitioner only on 08.07.2016 and a Meeting was fixed on 14.07.2016 without giving seven days clear notice to the petitioner. In other words, the respondents have failed to comply with the Act. 2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that this Writ Petition has become infructuous, as the Meeting as scheduled was held on the 14.07.2016. 3. Having served the notice only on 08.07.2...
AGRIGOLD Foods and Farm Products Ltd., Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant: (a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, or anyone claiming through them from passing off their goods or their business as the business of the plaintiffs', by using the expression AGRIGOLD or any other expression visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to it either as or part of its business / trading name, or otherwise in the course of their business, in their sign boards, correspondence, letter heads, trade literature, advertisement in the print or electronic media including as e-mail ID or web address and in such other business literature and or enable others to pass off. (b) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, distributors,...
Mooku @ Venkatesan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengleput, made in S.C.No.124 of 2012 dated 18.11.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.124 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengleput. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 18.11.2015, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. No fine was imposed. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Rani. She was a Sanitary Worker. Her son-in-law was one Mr.Ammavasai. Ammavasai had developed illicit intimacy with one Parvathi. Paravathi is the sister of the accused. Ammavasai had eloped with Parvathi. On account of ...
R. Kannan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to give electricity service connection to the petitioners house comprised in S.F.No.206/2 of Mattur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.) Common Order 1. The writ petitions have been filed for providing electricity connection to the petitioners herein. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 3. The petitioners are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the houses situated in S.F.No.206/2 of Mattur Village, Pudhukottai District. According to the petitioners, they have made individual representation on 27.03.2016 to the third respondent herein seeking electricity service connection. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances, this Co...
M. Sehu Abubacker Vs. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Dist ...
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 respondents No.1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land in S.No.72/465 B having an extent of 0.01000 sq.meter situated at Thondi Perumal Kovil Sannathi Street, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 29.6.2016 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 owns a land in S.No.72/465B, measuring an extent of 0.0100 sq.meter situated at Thondi Perumal Kovil Sannathi Street, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the above said land, a house as well as a well is situated. In fact, he is paying the house-tax and the patta also stands in h...
Anandharaj and Another Vs. State by The Inspector of Police,Chengleput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, made in S.C.No.90/2012 dated 11.02.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The 1st accused stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 404 of IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. By judgment dated 11.02.2014, the trial court convicted both the accused 1 and 2 under Sections 449, 302 and 404 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 404 of IPC and s...
R. Ramasubramanian Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.12075 of 1997 dated 30.6.2008.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the common order dated 30.6.2008 passed in W.P.Nos.12075 and 14314 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed Industrial Dispute No.448 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore, wherein, the present second respondent has been shown as sole respondent. 3. The material averments made in the petition are that the petitioner has been appointed as Operative Trainee by the respondent on 9.9.1991 and his initial probation has been fixed for a period of six months. After a lapse of six months, his probation period has been extended periodically. The petitioner has evinced good result during probation period. The probation of the petitioner has been extended periodically with oblique motive and also against the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishmen...
Rathnavel Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.122 of 2014 dated 24.07.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.122 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, who stands convicted for offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B) of Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Indian Arms Act has come up with this appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mr.Muthumanickam, he was...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »