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/s.Sheriff Travel and Cargo Service Pvt Ltd., Vs. Abdul Majid and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in R.C.A.No.279 of 2014 passed by the VII Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Court of Small Causes, Chennai by erroneously confirming the order of eviction dated 02.04.2014 passed by XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1812 of 2012 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.279 of 2014 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1812 of 2012 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the tenant have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.1812 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of willful default. 3. According to the respondents, the petition premises was leased out for n...
Ramadevi Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(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-67-AC-1166 seized by the second respondent on 11.3.2016 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, he is the owner of the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-67-AC-1166 and it comes to be known that on 11.03.2016, the Second Respondent seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was driven with adulterated fuel namely mixing kerosene with diesel. After seizure of the vehicle, the Second Respondent/The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Virudhunagar District registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2016, for the alleged offence under Clause 17 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene(Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 and Clause...
K. Sivasamy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein not to alter the patta in patta No. 663 without conducting any proper enquiry in accordance with law in respect of the property situated in S.No.420 to an extent of 4.76 acre situated at Thanthoni Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with. 3. According to the petitioner, the property in Sy.No.420 in patta No.663, measuring an extent of 4.76 acre situated at Thanthoni Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District, originally belongs to his father A.Kandhasamy and he succeeded to the same in an ancestral fashion. His father through his power of attorney, Kumarasamy created a lay out during the year 1986 in the aforesaid land, as per rules with an intention to obtain necessary approval. ...
Rajivgandhi Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Spl. Sessions Case No.15 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.) 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Spl.Sessions Case No.15 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. By the said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months' simple imprisonment; he was also convicted for the offence under Section 450 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'the POCSO Act') and sentenced to und...
Kannan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of investigation / enquiry.) 1. Petitioner came forward to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the 3rd respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Krishnan Kovil Police Station, Virudhunagar District, that he shall not be harassed. 2. Petitioner is alleged to have murdered his wife. In this connection, a case in Crime No.118 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., has been registered by Krishnan Kovil Police. After investigation, final report has been filed. Now, the murder case is pending in S.C.No.56 of 2016, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned counsel is defending the petitioner in the said murder case. However, the 3rd respondent Police is harassing the petitioner by directing him to frequently come to the Police Station and show his f...
State Represented by The Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. J. Doraiswamy a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case No.825 of 2015 filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2015 in Special Case No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. Criminal Revision Case No.826 of 2015 filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.648 of 2014 in Special Case No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.) These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the State against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.648 of 2014 in Special Case No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, discharging the respondents herein (A1 and A2) from the alleged offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with 34 IPC and under Sections 13(1)(d) and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. S...
S. Mallika Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 17.6.2016 for issuance of patta in her favour.) 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, she is a poor and helpless lady. She is residing in the address at 386, Kurunthanpallam, Kalathur Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. She is a widow and her husband expired on 17.6.2002, leaving behind herself and her two daughters as his legal heirs. Her first daughter is not yet married because of her disabilities and another daughter also is not yet married. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that on 17.6.2016 she addressed a representation to all the Respondents. Even though the Respondents had received the same, they have ...
M. Jeyanthi Meenambigai Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Notification No.2A/MRB/E4/2014 dated 03.03.2014 on the file of the Respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 to appoint the Petitioner as Physiotherapist Grade-II for the year 2014 with consequential benefits.) 1. In view of the boycott by some of the lawyers, this Court has issued a Notification No.103/JUDL/2016 dated 04.07.2016, which is given as under:- ''It is informed that the cases listed in the daily cause list will be taken up for hearing without any adjournment. If there is no representation, such cases will be decided on merits.'' 2. While so, when the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, however, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, while moving an application to vacate the interim or...
Paramasivan Vs. Pandian @ Vellaiah Pandian
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti, dated 06.04.2011 as confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.273 of 2008, dated 13.07.2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.) 1. The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal, challenging the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.41 of 2010, dated 06.04.2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti by confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.273 of 2008, dated 13.07.2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. 2. The appellant, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.273 of 2008 for declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of S.NO.7/2 in the plaint schedule property from one Muthammal on 03.02.1990. From that date onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, after making mutation of the revenue records. On 22.1...
Venkatesan Vs. Papaanan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 05.04.2010 passed in C.C.No.37 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, acquitting the accused/respondents 1 to 7 herein from the charges under sections 147, 294(b), 323 of IPC.) G. Chockalingam, J. 1. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect, which reads as under: Petition filed revision against acquittal instead of appeal against acquittal by mistake. Likely may be given to file appeal against acquittal. 2. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the endorsement made, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision....
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »