Chennai Court August 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.
V. Kuppulakshmi Vs. Jaiprakash and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 18.03.2016 made in CMP.No.645 of 2016 in SC.No.248 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore and set aside the same by allowing the criminal revision.) 1. The present Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in CMP.No.645 of 2015 in SC.No.248 of 2015 dated 18.03.2016 allowing the discharge petition filed by the A4/present petitioner from the charges. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in this case, the trial Court without analysing the entire evidence discharged A4, as if there is no incriminating materials available for framing of charges against him. The trial Court without analysing the evidences of LW1 to LW3 have categorically implicated the accused and there was a specific allegations found in the...
G. Sivaji Vs. R. Chandra and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.19 of 2016 in O.S.No.44 of 2013 dated 09.04.2016 on the file of the IV-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.04.2016 in I.A.No.19 of 2016 in O.S.No.44 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to receive additional written statement, after posting the matter for arguments. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2013 before the trial Court for partition. The petitioner was arrayed as fourth defendant. The petitioner filed his written statement and contested the suit on multiple grounds. 4. The trial Court after framing issues recorded the evidence of the parties. The matter was posted for arguments on 13.07.2015. The petitio...
M/s. NCL Wintech India Limited Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN 33180926973/2014-15, dated 30.06.2016, and to quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.Vasudha Thiyagarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepting notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in Unplasticized Poly Vinyl Chloride Window system, (UPVC Window), and they are registered dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, TNVAT Act). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of assessment, dated 30.06.2016, for the assessment year, 2014-15. 3. The petitioner filed their returns in Form I, under the TNVAT Act, and were deemed to have been a...
M/s. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs. The Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 15.07.2016 together with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal as against the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form E-2, dated 8.4.2015.) 1. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner which is a Sugar Mill seeks for a direction upon the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 15.07.2016 together with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal as against the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 08.04.2015. The said order dated 08.04.2015 is a notice of demand for tax assessed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumpt...
K. Jagan and Another Vs. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.08.2011 in I.A.No.522 of 2011 in O.S.No.212 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal.) 1. To add or not to add? If to add, how much to add? If so much to add, who can add? Additional has always been considered to be positive. But sometimes, addition is considered to be unwarranted and undesirable, especially for a plaintiff opposing the defendant from filing an additional Written Statement in a civil proceeding. The long and short of the instant Civil Revision Petition just revolves around this. 2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Court, Namakkal in I.A.No.522 of 2011 in O.S.No.212 of 2000 dated 29.08.2011. The Revision Petitioners are Defendants 2 and 3 in the Original Suit filed by the respondents for specific performance. The first defendant in the suit is the grandmother of t...
A. Maliki Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to accept the Release Deed, dated 22.03.2016, presented by the Petitioner for registration and act on the document according to the provisions of Law. 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, 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 father one Abdullah (brother of his father) lived together, as Joint family, and hence, all the properties including the property in question was maintained by his father. In fact, the said Abdullah had given the said property to his father Abdul Majeed by way of 'Hiba', on 18.01.1975. His father had accepted the same and the property was in his possession and enjoyment, till his demise. In fact, the revenue records were also changed in the name of his father Abdul Majeed. 5. In comes to be known that t...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.966 of 2010, dated 10th Day of March, 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I Additional District Court, Madurai.) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai and the same resulted in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. The respondents filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.966 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I Additional District Court, Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 in a road accident involving the vehicle owned by the appellant. 4. The accident took place on 22.01.2010. The deceased was riding his motor cycle from Melur to Thirupathur main road. The bus owned by the ap...
Axies India Workers' Union, Rep. by its Secretary, Kancheepuram Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20-10-2011 in W.P.No.23864 of 2011.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ appeal has been directed against the order dated 20-10-2011 passed in W.P.No.23864 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed W.P.No.23864 of 2011 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition so as to prohibit the second respondent herein from adjudicating A.P.Nos.5 to 12 of 2007 wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. The material averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioner is nothing but Union of Workmen, employed by the fourth respondent's Management for its factories situate at Sriperumpudur and Gummidipoondi. Some of the workmen of the fourth respondent have been dismissed from service and for getting approval of the dismissal, relevant applications have been filed on the f...
M/s. Danube Enterprises, Chennai Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.28957/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in TIN 33230721645/2007-08 dated 15.06.2016 and quash the same with the direction to the respondent to consider the objection dated 14.09.2015 and 21.01.2016 by affording an opportunity of personal hearing.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders of assessment dated 15.06.2016 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TNVAT Act] for the years 2007-08 to 2013-14. All the orders have been passed on the same date, though they are separate orders. 3. At the time when the case was heard for admission on 19.08.2016, this Court recorded the submissions of the petitioner that though the trading profit and loss acco...
M. Govindarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Princip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected in G.O. (D) No.86, Highways and Minor Ports (HR2) Department dated 10.04.2015 passed by the first respondent and charge memo No.8775/Confidential-3/2001-4, dated 20.09.2001 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer and Divisional Engineer on par with juniors with all benefits.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the first respondent as well as the charge memo dated 20.09.2001 passed by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to promote him as Assistant Divisional Engineer and Divisional Engineer on par with juniors with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Highways Department on 08.10.19...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »