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.
M. Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the third respondent, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C.No.237 of 2014 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. M.Vijayalakshmi is very much upset in not police executing Non-Bailable Warrant issued as against her husband viz., P.Mohan. Thus, she wants issuance of direction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). R.Anbumathi, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arupukottai is present today. 3. In connection with the dowry demand case in C.C.No.237 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai issued Non-Bailable Warrant as early as on 21.07.2015 as against the third respondent viz., Mohan, who is the husband of the petitioner Vijayalakshmi. The grievance o...
Palanivel Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439[i][b] of Cr.P.C., to modify the conditions imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Sessions Court, Villupuram in CMP.No.1084 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to modify the conditional order dated 22.02.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1084 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is seen that this petitioner is A1 in Crime No.556 of 2015 for offences under Section 451, 393 and 397 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner and A2 entered into the house of the de facto complainant and after assaulting the de facto complainant had committed robbery. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.1084 of 2016 on 22.02.2016 on the following conditions: The pet...
M. Chinnaiah Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Mu.Mu.No.9521/15/A2 dated 26.05.2016 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the legal heir certificate to the Petitioner within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 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, his grandfather, Maruthan Samban was married to Mrs.Solaiammal and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two sons viz., 1. M.Kodanki and 2. M.Mookkan (the petitioner's father) and one daughter viz., Mrs.Peruchi Ammal (daughter). It comes to be known that the petitioner's grandfather Maruthan Samban died on 10.05.1957. Later, his wife Solaiammal also died. After their deat...
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the common order dated 31.3.2015 made in W.P.Nos.6214 and 6668 of 2015 on the file of this Court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for brevity "TNPSC") against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 31.3.2015 made W.P.Nos.6214 and 6668 of 2015. 2. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners. They are Diploma Holders in Mechanical Engineering and Automobile Engineering respectively. They were holding licence to drive both transport and non transport vehicles. The said licences expired on 19th March 2012 and 26th April 2012 respectively. It was renewed on 12th July 2012 and 11th July 2012 respectively. Pursuant to the notification issued by the TNPSC on 25th June 2012, the respondents applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. They appeared for the examination and based on the marks obtained by them, they were directed to...
Nandagopalan Vs. The Chief Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order in No.CHN/RandP/RECTT/69/2015, dated 12.05.2016, passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's candidature and appoint him as Junior Motor Vehicle Driver (HV) in the 1st respondent and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper on the circumstances of the case.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, on 12.05.2016, thereby, rejecting the petitioner's candidature for recruitment to the post of Junior Motor Vehicle Driver (HV). 2. According to the petitioner, he had a valid Employment Exchange Registration Card, therefore, he had applied for the post of Junior Motor Vehicle Driver (HV). He was called for written test and subsequently, he was called for interview, after q...
Srinivasan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, made in S.C.No.151 of 2011, dated 17.04.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.151 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The 1st accused stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 452, 324, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 452, 324 read with 34, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. By judgment dated 17.04.2015, the trial court convicted both the accused and sentenced them as detailed below : Rank of the AccusedConvictionsentenceA1 and A2Convicted under sections 449 IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years. Convicted u/s.452 of IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5...
M/s. VMR Textiles Private Limited Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9, 11(A) and 79 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to sanction the scheme of arrangement (demerger).) 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement (demerger) (in short Scheme) between the Demerged company with the Resulting company with effect from 01.04.2015. The Scheme is appended as Annexure 'D' to the petitions. 2. M/s.VMR Textiles Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.71 of 2016 is the Demerged company and M/s.Parampara Spinning Mills Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.72 of 2016 is the Resulting Company. 3. A perusal of the records shows that the respective petitioner company have complied with the formalities as prescribed under the Companies Act and the Rules framed therein. A Certificate of the Chartered Accountant has been filed which, inter alia, holds out that the Demerged Company ha...
M/s. Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd. Rep by its Director, Ravi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration to declare that entire survey conducted by the officers of the Income Tax Department under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the 1st and 2nd of December, 2015, in the business premises of the petitioner and the residence of the Directors of the petitioner and the consequential summons proceedings under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 culminating in the visit of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the residences of the Directors of the petitioner on 15th June 2016 to issue summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and take evidence are illegal, malafide, abuse of powers, ultra vires the Income Tax Act, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. ) 1. Heard Dr.Anita Sumanth learned counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.G.Rajagopal, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for Mr.T.Promod K...
Ramanathan Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to furnish the Auditing Report for the period from 1995 -2014 pertaining to Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukkovil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District vide Representation dated 23.03.2015 within the stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and the Learned Standing Counsels for the first and third respondents. 2. It appears that the petitioner's appeal filed before the first respondent on 29.06.2015 is still pending for disposal. At this stage, the grievance of the petitioner is that he sent a first representation on 23.03.2015 addressed to the third respondent under the Right to Information Act, seeking 13 information. Later, he sent another representation on 18.02.2016 to the first respondent and that he has not recei...
Hotel Sangam, Owned by Sangu Chakra Hotels Private Ltd., Tiruchirappal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 29.04.2008, made in W.P.(MD)Nos.1080 and 1487 of 2008.) Common Judgment 1. The appellants enjoyed the privilege of FL3 licence continuously for years together and when demand was made to pay the privilege fee, they have filed Writ Petitions challenging the levy, primarily on the ground that four star gradation and three star gradation were not renewed periodically and as such, there is no liability to pay the fee as claimed by the Excise Department. BRIEF FACTS: W.A.(MD)No.496 of 2008 [against W.P.(MD)No.1080 of 2008]: 2. The appellant established a Hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Sangam' at Collector's Office Road, Tiruchirappalli. The Hotel was classified as a four star hotel for a period of three years with effect from 16 November, 1993. The appellant obtained FL3 licence based on the four star classification. The Licensing Authority issued the licence and it was rene...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »