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.
Aruchami Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.06.2013 in S.C.No.52 of 2012 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.52 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 (2 counts) and 309 I.P.C. By judgment dated 13.06.2013, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for each count for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. No separate sentenced was imposed for offence under Section 309 I.P.C. Considering the financial status of the accused, the trial Court has not imposed any fine amount on the accused. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused is a resident...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Vs. The Supe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 24.07.2006 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1814 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirappalli.) 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirappalli made in M.C.O.P.No.1814 of 2000 dated 24.07.2006. 2. The respondent, Superintendent of Police, Trichy filed MCOP No.1814 of 2000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Trichy, claiming compensation of Rs.4,54,194/-, on the ground that the Van bearing Registration No. TN-45-G-0458 belonging to the respondent department was proceeding from Thuvarangurichi to Trichy and when the Van was nearing Gurunthakaalapatti village, Vaduthaakulakkarai, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-6425 belonging to the appellant Transport...
M/s. Upasana Finance Ltd 98 A Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Instant Appeal is filed against the order dated 28/7/2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench - 'B' in I.T.A.No.67/Mds/2003 for the assessment year 1998 - 1999. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant is a finance Company, engaged in hire purchase, leasing and discounting business. The appellant had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998 - 1999, on 30/11/1998. In the said assessment year, a sum of Rs.21,13,705/- was over due, from defaulting customers/borrowers, for more than a period of six months. According to the appellant, since these monies were overdue (NPA/ Non-performing assets), the appellant did not show this as part of income. Assessing Officer, completed the assessment, on 23/3/2001, by which a sum of Rs.21,13,705/- was added as income and therefore, it was brought to tax. Assessing Officer, further completed the assessment by which he further added Lease Equalisation Reserve of Rs.42,55,549/- ...
Senthilkumar and Another Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, made in S.C.No.110/2013 dated 22.12.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.110 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. They stood charged for offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. By judgment dated 22.12.2014, the trial court convicted them under both the charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. 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 deceased in this case was one Mr.Raja. P.W.1 ...
A. Santhanam Vs. The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Ka.No.Assistant/Eng/V/Thirukudi/ KO.Kattu/A181/16 dated 27.06.2016 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same.) 1. Mr.A.Santhanam, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,78,411/- plus interest Rs.4176/-, totalling a sum of Rs.2,82,587/- by the third respondent for the total consumption of 77591 units being used by the petitioner for his temporary service connection No.079-003-532. Out of which, it is stated that the petitioner has paid for the consumption of 57661 units and for remaining units, the respondents have given seven days from 27.06.2016. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that he applied for free electricity service connection with the respondents for agricultural purpose. The petitioner was informed that as per seniority it would be given....
Sivakumar Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the 3rd respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.109/2016/E1 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the Respondents to open the tender bid submitted by the Petitioner, dated 11.03.2016, in respect of Tamil Nadu Urban Road Infrastructure Project (TURIP) 2016-2017 to be implemented in 3rd Respondent Municipality and proceed with the same in accordance with law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is a registered contractor of the Third Respondent / Municipality. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 11.03.2016, the Third Respondent / Commissioner, Keelakarai Municipality, Ramanathapuram District, floated E-Tender, under the Scheme called, '...
T. Vellaikkannu and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.140 of 2016 dated 19.05.2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioners.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.140 of 2016 dated 19.05.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that after completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned jurisdictional Court. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Trichy Vs. S. Rengaraju and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 06/07/2010 made in O.A.No.944 of 2009 on the file of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, the 3rd respondent tribunal herein and quash the same.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 6th July 2010 passed in Original Application No.944 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 2. The first respondent herein, as petitioner, has filed Original Application No.944 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, praying to set aside the order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the first respondent therein. 3. It is averred in the petition that the applicant is an officiating Postmaster at Mettupalayam Sub Office. He has been initially appointed as GDS Packer on 6.9.1973 and he is eligible for considering selection and appointment by promot...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. A cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph No.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'Thirumarainathar 5th Mandagapadi Trustee Muthuraman @ Manickam Chetty-1, T.Lakshmi-2' .As a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. In this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time. 3. The Registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016....
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.Nos.29528 and 29529 of 2008, dated 20.10.2011.) Common Judgment: A. Selvam, J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been directed against the common order passed in W.P.Nos.29528 and 29529 of 2008, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. It is averred in both the writ petitions that the respondents/petitioners have studied up to 10th standard and enlisted their names in Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram and subsequently, they have been duly appointed on contractual basis, on 04.03.1997 in the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram and subsequently, they have been given time scale of pay, on 4.11.1998. But the first appellant/first respondent has passed G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 26.3.2007, wherein, the services of the petitioners have been regularised only from 26.3.2007 and in order to quash the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. The learned Single Judge, after...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »