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.
Kutty @ Jeyasubramaniya Raja Vs. State represented by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.05.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.7050 of 2016 in C.C.No.325 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.7050 of 2016 in C.C.No.325 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, the accused has directed this revision. 2. Cr.No.753 of 2013 has been registered by the police as against the petitioner. After investigation, the Police filed the final report before the said Magistrate for offences under Sections 420, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., on the ground that the petitioner had cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.73,265/- and on 21.09.2013, at about 9.30 a.m., near a place in Rajapalayam, he had wrongfully restrained him and abused him in filthy language and also criminally intimidated him. 3. The learned Magistrate coming to the conclusion that there is ground to proce...
Bina Leela Prasad Vs. The Union of India, Rep. by The General Manager, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent made in O.A.No.310/01681/2014, dated 29.09.2015, dismissing the Original Application on erroneous views of law and facts and to quash the same and further to direct the 1st to 3rd respondents to extend the promotion to the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 12.06.2013 with consequential fixation and alternative employment on medical incapacitation to the petitioner with reference to his junior Sri.B.Mohan Gandhi.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.310/01681/2014, dated 29.09.2015, dismissing the Original Application. 2. The averments in the writ petition are as follows : (i) The petitioner while he was working as Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot, selection for the pos...
Karunambal Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2016 passed in W.P.No.5941 of 2016. 3. The appellant's husband late Palanisamy died while he was in service leaving behind the appellant and her three daughters. The appellant/petitioner applied for job on compassionate ground to her last daughter, namely, Buvaneswari along with all necessary documents including her educational certificates. But the same was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 19.01.2016 on the ground that she was married on the date of application. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant herein/writ petitioner filed writ petition No.5941 of 2016, seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent on 19.01.2016 and consequently, to direct the respondents to provide job on compassionate ground. 4. The learned Sin...
S.S. Perumal, Tank Contractor, Madurai Vs. The Senior Regional Manager ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 20.01.2016 in MDRO/VK/RET and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to restore the contract awarded to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner calls in question the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the respondent by which the respondent terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner inter alia blacklisted and prohibited him from participating in the future contracts that may be awarded by the respondent. 2. The petitioner would contend that he was awarded a contract on 01.03.2015 by the respondent for five years commencing from 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2018 to run Trucks with capacity of 12 KL and above to transport bulk white oil petroleum products. An agreement dated 01.03.2015 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. In order to give effect to...
M. Mahalingam Vs. The District Collector, Karur District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/986/2016 dated 15.07.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Mr. M. Mahalingam, who is the elected Panchayat President of K.Pettai Village Panchayat, Kulithalai Union, Karur Distrct, challenges the impugned order passed by the Inspector of Panchayat, namely, the District Collector, dated 15.07.2016, on various grounds. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- (1) Firstly, as per Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, if the Inspector of Panchayat, on his own motion or on a representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the sanctioned strength of the Village Panchayat containing a statement of charges against the President and presented in person to the Inspector by two-thirds of the members of the Village...
Arun Excello Enterprises Private Limited and Another Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement (Demerger).) Common Order: 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement (demerger) with effect from 01.04.2015 for amalgamation and with effect from 01.04.2016 for arrangement (demerger). The Scheme of amalgamation and arrangement (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure 4 to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.201 of 2016 is the 1st transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.202 of 2016 is the 2nd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.203 of 2016 is the 3rd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.204 of 2016 is the 4th transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.205 of 2016 is the transferee/demerged company and the petitioner in C.P.No.206 of 2016 is the resulting company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the pet...
Ekambaram Vs. State by: Inspector of Police, Ponneri, Thiruvallur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 10.03.2015 in S.C.No.125 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed in S.C.No.125 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court / Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvallur. By the said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.W.1 / victim / de-facto complainant (Prabhavathy), aged about 26 years, was residing in Mannoo...
M/s. Concrete Constructions, Represented by its Sole Proprietor Vs. R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: In A.S.No.27 of 2012: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.06.2011 made in O.S.No.13663 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Chennai and prays the same be set aside and the counter claim made in O.S.No.13663 of 2010 be decreed. A.S.No.176 of 2012: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.06.2011 made in O.S.No.13663 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Chennai and prays the same be set aside and the suit in O.S.No.13663 of 2010 be dismissed.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These Appeal Suits are directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.5) in O.S.No.13663 of 2010. 2. The defendant filed two appeals, (1) A.S.No.176 of 2012 agai...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 2. Whether all the incidents and cruelty rendered by the Respondent should be narrated in the notice itself? 3. Whether the First Appellate Court is correct in rejecting the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, simply they are friends of the Appellant, when there is no contra evidence and legal reasoning to reject them? Notice. Private notice also permitted....
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rajapalayam Vs. Saraswathi a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010, dated 30.03.2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, calling in question, the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010, on 30.03.2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants in the aforementioned petition. The third respondent is the owner of the offending bus, which was found responsible for causing the fatal accident that occurred on 21.08.2009, at around 11.45 a.m., near Lorry Owners' Association building situated on Rajapalayam - Srivilliputtur main road. The husband of the first respondent herein and father of the second respondent, by name, Sri....
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »