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.
Palanisamy Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: C.R.P.(NPD).No.657 of 2016 filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 26.02.2014 made in I.A.No.896 of 2013 in O.S.No.681 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.) 1. Challenging the award of Rs.10,000/- as costs for condoning the delay of 376 days in re-presenting the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendant has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.657 of 2016. Challenging the order of arrest passed in E.P.No.28 of 2013 in O.S.No.681 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, the defendant has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4580 of 2015. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.681 of 2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.81,420/- together with interest at the rate of 12% on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/-. 3. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, an exparte decree was passed on 10.08.2012. Pursuan...
Vijay Baskar Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.119 of 2013 dated 28.10.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, sole accused in S.C.No.119 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram district at Chengalpattu, who, stood convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months 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 Vidhya, aged about 21 years. She had studied upto plus two. Her father died many years before her death. She was brought up by her mother and brother. She was residing with them at Parameswaran Nagar, Adhambakkam, Chennai. She was working in a browsing center kno...
K. Pandi Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant 5th Review Benefits and to Revise the Petitioner pay in the post of Checking Inspector with retrospective effect from 20.09.2013 in term of Government order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport (C) Department dated 30.04.2015 and as per the 12(3) settlement dated 22.01.2011 and further directing the Respondents to pay the difference in salary and to pay difference in Retirement Benefits including difference amount in monthly pension Gratuity, Commuted value of pension, leave salary and all other attendant benefits payable to me from 20.09.2013 to 31.05.2014 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not given the benefits both und...
N. Manonmony Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle payment of a. Gratuity amount Rs.4,42,887/- b.Earned Leave 125 days c.Medical Leave-35 days d. Provident Fund Rs.3,11,549/- e.Employees Retirement Benefit Scheme (ERBS) f.Institute of Road and Transport Technology (IRTT) Fund g.Settlement benefits and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed ...
Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order in Rc.1231/2014/(2012-13) dated 09.01.2015 passed by the respondent, quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.) 1. Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.01.2015 which is an assessment order for the year 2012-2013 on several grounds and also on the ground that the assessment had been finalized without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Officers on 11.03.2014 and it was stated that on verification of the records it was noticed that the petitioner has sold t...
Bava G. Chokkappa Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Kudiyiruppu Act, N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.04.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.21136, 21128, 21134, 21127, 21129, 21132, 21133, 21123, 21130, 21126, 21131, 21125, 21135 and 21124 of 1994, respectively. ) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. These writ appeals have been filed by the appellant against the dismissal of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.21123 to 21136 of 1994 by order dated 22.04.2003. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions from which the present writ appeals have arisen, are as follows: (i) With regard to the writ petitions except W.P.Nos.21131 and 21133 of 1994, the question involved is as to the correctness of the grant of patta made by the first respondent, ie., the District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam in favour of the respective private respondents, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 40 of 1971. With regard to the other two writ petitions,...
V. Srinivasan Vs. A. Ravikumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.03.2016 made in CA.No.25 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur confirming the order dated 30.04.2014 made in STC.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur.) 1. The criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur in CA.No.25 of 2014 dated 17.03.2016 confirming the sentence dated 30.04.2014 made in STC.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur. 2. The facts relating to the criminal revision is briefly as follows :- The respondent complainant preferred a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act for the cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent for Rs.2,55,000/- on 12.02.2013, when the cheque was presented for collection on 06.03.2013, the same was r...
The National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Madurai Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - 600 006 dated 07.08.2009 made in Appeal No.3/311/09.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.939/09 dated 07.08.2009 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Chennai - 600 006, confirming the order of both original and Appellate Authorities, disallowing Cenvat credit on welding electrodes used by the appellant in their factory. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that M/s.National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd, is engaged in manufacture of sugar, falling under Chapter Heading No.1701 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Based on the information gathered by the Divisional Preventive Unit that M/s.National Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited are availing Cenvat credit wrongly, on welding rods/electrodes and asbestos sheets, the officers attached to the Di...
Radha Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent to give electricity service connection to the petitioners house comprised in S.F.No.206/2 of Mattur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.) 1. These writ petitions have been filed for providing electricity connection to the petitioners herein. 2. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, these matters 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...
Sri Ramakrishna Tapovonam, Rep. By its Secretary, Tiruchirappalli Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No. 1743/2015/A3 dated 01.09.2015 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.) M. Venugopal, J 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition, which runs as under: I may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to challenge the main order dated 27.08.2015 in a fresh writ petition and then render justice. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »