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.
A. Mani and Another Vs. V. Elango and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 23 (1) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, against the Order and decretal order, dated 21.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.3349 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chennai / XV Additional District Judge, Chennai.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants against the order, dated 21.01.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3349 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The claimants are parents of the deceased Omprakash, who died in the work spot at 5.45 pm on 13.05.2008, as the tipper lorry, bearing Regn.No.TN-10-T-9903 belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the third respondent herein was driven rashly and negligently by the driver by suddenly taking a reverse and hit the deceased. The claimants claimed Rs.35,00,000/- from the respondents as compensation. 3. The claiman...
Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai Vs. P. Sinnasamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.455 of 2007, dated 20.04.2007, on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.455 of 2007, dated 20.04.2007, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006. The Tribunal, while setting aside the Order-in-Original No.31 of 2000, dated 31.03.2000, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Madras-1, directed him, to give option to the 1st respondent, for redemption of gold seized, against payment of fine. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that on 17.09.1999, the 1st respondent, who arrived by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 410/17.09.99, at Anna International Airport, Chennai, was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. He showed...
Ramesh and Another Vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 14.09.2015 in S.C.No.51 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Court/Fast Track Court), Erode.) Common Judgment 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.82 of 2016 is A1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.189 of 2016 is A2. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment. These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgment dated 14.09.2015 in S.C.No.51 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Court/ Fast Track Court), Erode, convicting each of the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, each to undergo two years simple imprisonment. 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2 is that the A1-Ramesh was residing in Salaipudur Kallupattarai Lane and he was a...
Jeevanesan Vs. The Commissioner, Tirumangalam Municipality, and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2011.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition, in view of the subsequent events. 2. The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
S. Kannan and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (K ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioners retirement benefits including Gratuity, Earned Leave Wages, Pension arrears for 4 months and Dearness allowance payable to him along with reasonable rate of interest as per the settlement dated 13.04.2015 U/S 12(3) of ID Act w.e.f.01.09.13.Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs. 3,73,800/- towards Gratuity together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs. 4,86,795/- towards Gratuity Rs. 47,071/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 31.03.15 payable pursuant t...
M. Rengasamy Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay entire terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including gratuity together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passe...
Castrol Limited, Suresh Castrol House, Rep by its Constituted Attorney ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 105, 106, 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Sections 51, 55 and 62 of Copyright Act. a) A perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' registered Trade Marks CASTROL, CASTROL GTX, CASTROL CRB and CASTROL LOGO by use of Trade Marks identical or deceptively similar thereto; b) Granting a perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendants' lubricants, oils, and gre...
A.P. Sujitha Kumari Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyaku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 28.06.2016 with in a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court besides directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner as well as not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property No.1, Vinayakar Street, Krishnan Kovil, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, considering the Civil Nature of the matter and thus render justice.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2016 with in a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court besides directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner as well as not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property No.1, Vinayakar Street, Krishnan Kovil, Nagercoil, Kany...
V. Selvakumari Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Hig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo made in Memorandum No.939/A1/2016 dated 15.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 15.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelveli District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned order, would submit that if there is any error on the part of the registering authority while discharging quasi-judicial function under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, The Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules framed thereunder, the same cannot be questioned, by initiating any departmental proceedings, for the simple reason that the said order is always appealable to higher authority more particularly, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by whic...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.515 of 2010, dated 04.05.2010, read with Miscellaneous Order No.371 of 2011, dated 25.07.2011, passed in Application for Rectification of Mistake E/ROM/62/2010, filed against the Final Order No.515 of 2010, dated 04.05.2010, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.515 of 2010, dated 04.05.2010, read with Miscellaneous Order No.371 of 2011, dated 25.07.2011, passed in the Application for Rectification of Mistake E/ROM/62/2010, filed against the Final Order No.515 of 2010, dated 04.05.2010, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that M/s.Chempast Sanmar Ltd, PVC Division, respondent herein, are manufacturers of denatured ethyl alcohol, falling under Chapter sub-heading 2204.00 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »