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.
S. Karthikeyan Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records comprised in order C.No:VIII/10/19/2014-Cus Adjn date 29.04.2016 (Sl.No.5/2016-Cus) on the file of the respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Ms.D.Naveena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is working as a Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs at Coimbatore and he has come to adverse notice of the Department and was placed under suspension by order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, dated 04.02.2014. Subsequently, the Suspension Review Committee had reviewed the matter and the suspension was revoked with effect from 05.11.2015 and it is stated that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. In this Writ Petition, ...
The Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to allow the above writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 17.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD) No.1151 of 2009.) S.S. Sundar, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, and three others, who are respondents in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1151 of 2009, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition by order dated 17.11.2009. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are narrated as under: 2.1. The respondent in this appeal is the writ petitioner and he filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1151 of 2009 to quash the order in G.O.(D) No.215, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 19.06.2008 which is an order passed by the Government, enhancing the punishment given to the writ petitioner, by the original authority, in exercise of the power of s...
N. Vanjimuthu Vs. The Competent Authority/ The District Revenue Office ...
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 calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Roc.No.53200/2004/C4 dated 14.01.2016 and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.745/2000/A1 dated 29.01.20916 and the impugned attakshi dated 25.02.2016 for sealing the premises, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to remove the seal and hand over possession of Hotel Swagath (Hotel Senthil Residency), Old Door No.109, New No.6, NVGB Hall Road, Nagal Nagar, Adiyavithu Village, Dindigul East Taluk to the petitioner pending disposal of the I.A. No. 3 of 2016 ini O.A. No. 19 of 2011 on the file of Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai.) 1. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the first and second respondent respectively which led to the sealing of the hotel premises, which was under his occupation, namely Hotel Swagath (Hotel Sen...
Marimuthu Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.203 of 2011 dated 24.10.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.203 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The trial Court framed charges against the above stated three accused as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1294(b) of IPC2A1324 of IPC3A1302 r/w 34 of IPC4A1324 r/w 34 of IPC5A1324 r/w 34 of IPC ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A2324 r/w 34 of IPC2A2302 of IPC3A2324 of IPC4A2324 r/w 34 of IPC ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A3324 r/w 34 of IPC2A3302 r/w 34 of IPC3A3324 r/w 34 of IPC4A3324 of IPC By judgment dated 24.10.2013, the trial Court convicted and sentenced these ap...
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Rangasamudram Village and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition No.944/05 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2004 made in CMA.No.22/98 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam modifying the award No.1/98-99/A dated 11.09.1998 on the file of the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Sathyamangalam.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the awards passed in C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. An extent of 63 cents belonging to the respondents in C.M.A.No.22 of 1998 and an extent of 74 cents belonging to the respondents in C.M.A.No.21 of 1998 were acquired by the petitioner for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes. The acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 for enhancement of ...
Rajeshkumar @ Rajesh Others Vs. The State by Inspector of Police, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.130 of 2012 dated 22.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.175 of 2015 is A.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.176 of 2015 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.490 of 2014 is A.3; the appellant in Crl.A.No.436 of 2014 is A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.482 of 2014 is A.5 in S.C.No.187 of 2008, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:- Charge Nos.AccusedSection of lawFirst chargeA.1 to A.5120(B) I.P.C.,Second ChargeA.1 to A.5147 I.P.C.,Third ChargeA.1 to A.5364 I.P.C.,Fourth ChargeA.3 to A.5302 I.P.C.,Fifth ChargeA.1 and A.2302 r/w 120 (B) and 149 I.P.C.,Sixth ChargeA.1 to A.5201 I.P.C.,Seventh ChargeA.1 to A.5396 I.P.C, All the accused denied the above charges framed against them. ...
V. Vijayendran Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to initiate enquiry and to take necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.06.2016 within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to initiate enquiry and to take necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.06.2016. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, ...
Rajappa Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.11 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 12.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs.Thangammal. She was aged about 50 years. Th...
Devi and Others Vs. Venugopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.07.2002 made in A.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupattur, Vellore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.10.2000 made in O.S.No.991 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambur.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.07.2002 made in A.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupattur, Vellore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.10.2000 made in O.S.No.991 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambur. 2. The plaintiffs, who had lost in the Courts below are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit. 3. The suit property originally belonged to Yegappa Gou...
S. Venkatesan Vs. S. Padma and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C.) 1. The suit has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) for a decree for partition of portion of the Schedule A property remaining after providing for and keeping in common the Lord Srinivasa Temple (called Siru Thirupathi) measuring 222 sq.ft. in the North Eastern Corner, by metes and bounds and allot 1/5th share in the same to the plaintiff herein; (ii) for decree for partition of Schedule B property by metes and bounds and allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff; (iii) for decree for partition of movable properties described in the Schedule C hereunder and allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff; (iv) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the temple (called Siru Thirupathi) or removing the Lord Srinivasa deity from Schedule A property; (v) for a decree for mesne profits in respect of the Schedule B property from 06.03.2014 till date of realisation at such rate as fixed by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »