Chennai Court July 2016 Judgments
M/s. Datafield India Private Limited Vs. The Development Commissioner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Both these writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus, directing the respondent to invoke the jurisdiction, under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, in relation to the Central Sales Tax reimbursement, for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.) 1. Heard. 2. As the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common in nature, both the writ petitions are being heard, considered and disposed of, by this common order. 3. Both the writ petitions had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue Writs of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to invoke the jurisdiction, under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, relating to the reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax, paid by the petitioner, for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. 4. In the above writ petitions, it has been stated ...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Sampath Vs. M/s. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procdure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 23.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.126 and 128 of 2014 in O.S.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.) 1. These two memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the common order dated 23.11.2015 and made in I.A.Nos.126 and 128 of 2014 in the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore. 2. The petitioner in both the applications is the appellant in these two appeals. The respondents therein are the respondents herein. 3. It is manifested from the records that the appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore as against the respondents herein seeking the following reliefs: a) To declare the order dated 16.07.2014, which was passed by the second defendant on the basis of the al...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppayee Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to survey the Petitioner's land in S.No.131/2H and 131/3C, measuring an extent of 0.13 ares, Patta No.90 in Valanadu Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District on the Petitioner's petition, dated 13.6.2016.) 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, his petition/representation, dated 13.6.2016 is pending on the file of the Third Respondent/The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Marungapuri, Tiruchi District. The request of the Petitioner is to survey his land by the Second and Third Respondents, for which, he had remitted a sum of Rs.160/-.The Petitioner is a widow, possessing land in S.No.131/2H and 131/3C, measuring an extent of 0.13 ares, Patta No.90 in Valanadu Village,...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sheela and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladumbarai Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in STC.No.631 of 2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatty, Theni District.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.6 of 2015 has been registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatty, Theni District, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate in S.T.C.No.631 of 2015. 3. When the matte...
Tag this Judgment!Candida Justina Vs. Sunderbabu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.04.2015 made in M.O.P.No.184 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Puducherry.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.04.2015 passed in M.O.P.No.184 of 2009 by the Family Court at Puducherry, dissolving the marriage, as prayed for by the respondent / husband. 2. The wife is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The averments of the respondent / husband in nutshell are as follows : (i) The appellant and the respondent married on 09.06.2008 at Anderea Church, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry and followed by a reception and the same was registered before the Oulgaret Municipality on the same day. The marriage is arranged one. During the first night, the appellant had refused to consummate the marriage with the respondent / husband and had requested the husband with folded hands to postpon...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Karthikeyan Foundation, rep. by its Proprietor Vs. The Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in RC/1376/2015 (Years 2014-15, 2013-14, 2012- 13, 2011-12, 2010-11 and 2009-10 respectively) dated 30.6.2016, quash the same as illegal, against the principles of natural justice and fair play and contrary to the provisions of the Act and direct the respondent to give reasonable opportunity personal hearing and consider the objection independently without being influenced from the proposal received from the Enforcement Authority.) 1. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the assessment orders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the years 2009-10 to 20...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Govind Ashok Vs. The Government of India Rep. by its Secretary M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P No.14235 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016.) 1. This writ appeal has been filed by one of the unsuccessful petitioner, against the order of the learned single Judge, whereby and whereunder learned single Judge rejected the relief to quash a portion of the clause in the prospectus wherein additional qualification relating domicile status of was prescribed. 2. The petitioner is a minor represented by his father Thiru. Ashok Kumar and he has sworn to the affidavit on behalf of his minor son stating among other things that he is a permanent Group 'A' employee under the Puducherry Union Territory in the Department of Health and Family Welfare and presently working as the Chief Medical Officer, NFSG in Mahe region and continues to remain in service as on date. 3. The contention put forth by the appellant is that the impugned clause in the prospectus for admission to MBBS cou...
Tag this Judgment!C. Senthilkumar and Another Vs. State represented by The Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the orders made in S.C.No.118 of 2014 dated 12.07.2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.) 1. On the complaint of the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., a case was registered in Crime No.761 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 109 IPC, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Section 30 (1) (i) (iv) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 r/w Section 149 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and it has been taken up for trial in SC No.118 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 2. Petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7596 of 2014 has been filed to quash the proceedings and it is pending. Pending the original petition, this Court has dispensed with the personal appearance of the accused 2 and 3 / petitioners herein by the order dated 23.03.2014 in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014. 3. The petitioners filed a mem...
Tag this Judgment!Raja @ Fire Service Raja and Others Vs. The State, by Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeals against the judgment, dated 13.07.2015, made in S.C.No.89 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.89 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Erode. A-1 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 302 and 307 IPC. A-2 to A-4 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B and 302 IPC and A-5 stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B and 302 read with 34 IPC. By judgment, dated 13.07.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as detailed below : ad>AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1 to A.5147 IPCRigorous imprisonment for two years each.A.1 to A.5148 IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years each.A.1 to A.5120-B IPCRigorous imprisonment for ten years each.A.1 to A.4302 IPCLife imprisonment and to pay of Rs.10,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each.A.1307 IPCImprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. JAY AR Enterprises, Chennai Vs. M/s. Scrapt Traders, Kolkatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant: (a) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.62,41,356/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till date of decree and till the date of realisation. (b) award the cost of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,41,356/- with 24% interest per annum and for other reliefs. 2. The defendant is a dealer in Ferrous, Non-Ferrous and M.S.C.I. Rolling Scraps and Electrical Goods etc., and procured Iron Ore Pines for the purpose of exporting to Overseas Countries. For the said purpose, the plaintiff had paid the defendant a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifth Lakhs Only) for sale and supply of 20,000 Metric Tons of Iron Ore Pines and the bill of lading was arranged. Thereafter, on verification, it was found that the Iron Ore Pines were ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »