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.
R. Babu Vs. K. Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in unnumbered O.S.No.......... of 2015 dated 12.06.2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.) 1. Challenging the rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram for specific performance. The trial Court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 3. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRP (PD) Nos. 1211 of 2013 etc., batch, dated 28.8.2014, the Civil Revision Petition filed as against the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable. The Division Bench of this court held that if a Court of Law passes an order for rejection of plaint un...
Annadurai @ Usaivayan Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Namak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.08.2006 in S.C.No.185 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Namakkal.) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/A3 challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2006 in S.C.No.185 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, whereby the appellant/A3 was convicted and sentenced as follows: (i) Section 392 IPC -- seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment. (ii) Section 394 IPC -- ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment. (iii) Section 450 IPC -- one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of RS.500/-, in default, 15 days simple imprisonment. The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant/A3 to run concurrently. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1, along with his wife and childre...
Sree Mennakshi Industries, Chennai Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the respondent in TIN:33351203087/2014-15, dated 10.06.2016, and quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and with the consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is the registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (TNVAT Act), has challenged the assessment order for the year 2014-15. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2015, stating that on verification of the monthly returns in annexure I, it revealed that the petitioner has effected local purchases from registration cancelled dealers and accordingly, the respondent proposed to reverse the ITC claimed by the petitioner. In fa...
Gopi @ Gopinath and Another Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment in S.C.No.43 of 2013 dated 23.07.2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A.2 and A.3 in S.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi. A.1 was one Mr.Manoharan. The trial Court had framed a lone charge against A.1 for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C and framed charges against A.2 and A.3 for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 506(ii) and 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 23.07.2015, the trial Court acquitted A.1 from the charge under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., however, convicted A.2 and A.3 under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous impriso...
Dr. J. Jebasingh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Sec ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent State Government vide G.D(D).No.729, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 15.06.2015, quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give promotion forthwith to the petitioner herein as Associate Professor (Medical Oncology) in one of the existing vacancies by re-drawing the promotion panel and placing the petitioner at Rank No.1.) 1. Aggrieved by the impugned G.O(D).No.749 Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 15.06.2015, issued by the Principal Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Chennai, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Taking through the said Government Order, Dindigul District 15.06.2015, particularly, paragraph No.4 of the said Government Order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is a ...
Merlin Jeba Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-BK-7484 seized by the Second Respondent on 4.7.2016 to the Petitioner.) 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, her Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-BK-7484 was seized by the Second Respondent/The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Kuzhithurai at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, on the allegation that the vehicle was employed to transport 270 liters of white colour kerosene. After seizure of the vehicle, the Second respondent registered a case in Cr.No.115 of 2016, in respect of the alleged offence under Clause 17 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene(Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 r/w. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities...
Paul F. Morris Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police Anna Salai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.108 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent, F1, Chintadripet Police Station, Chennai and to quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.108 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same. 2. The Managing Director of M/s. Five Star Marine Exports Private Ltd. (hereinafter would be referred to as de facto complainant ) filed a private complaint in Crl.M.P. No.276 of 2013 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against Paul F. Morris, President of M/s. Sea Wealth Products Inc. and others (hereinafter would be referred to as accused ) alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the first respondent police, pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.108 of ...
Babu Vs. State by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri, made in S.C.No.210 of 2012 dated 23.06.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri. The 1st accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. By judgment dated 23.06.2014, the trial court convicted the accused accordingly and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The accused 1 and 2 are cousins. The deceased in this case was one Venkateshwaral...
E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Joint Commissioner (CT), Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent passed in RP.Nos.49 of 2014, 60 of 2014 and 80 of 2014 dated 27.08.2015 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to adhere with the binding precedent laid down by the Hon'ble High Court under the Writ Petition Nos.15826 to 15830 of 2014 dated 19.06.2014 on an identical set of facts of the petitioner own case by re-hearing the revision petition.) 1. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresn, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents and with their consent, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. Since the issue involved in all the writ petition is one and the same, the facts of the case in W.P.No.32137 of 2015 is taken up for consider...
Bava G. Chokkappa Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Appellate Authorit ...
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, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »