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. Murugan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Anot ...
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 2nd respondent not to interfere in Civil Matters to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the Civil Matters on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that no such representation is pending with the 2nd respondent. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to present a copy of the representation dated 06.04.2016 to the 2nd respondent in person and on receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.04.2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits and in accordan...
T. Udayakumar Vs. B. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders and decreetal orders dated 18.03.2014 made in I.A.Nos.161 and 162 of 2012 in O.S.No.134 of 2007 by the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.) 1. Challenging the fair and final orders passed in I.A.Nos.161 and 162 plaintiff 2012 in O.S.No.134 of 2007 on the file of the District Court No.II, Kancheepuram, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.09.2003. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trail Court, he was set exparte. The said exparte decree was passed on 31.08.2007. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.161 of 2012 to condone the delay of 786 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order dated 31.08.2007 and I.A.No.162 of 2012 to set aside the exparte order dated 31.08.2007. 3. In t...
Ansari and Another Vs. Syed Nizar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2006 made in O.S.No.67 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram.) 1. The appellants/Defendants 1 and 2, who lost the legal battle before both the Courts below have come forward with this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2006 made in O.S.No. 67 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record. 3. The first respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 7/20 share in the property stating that the property has b...
Thoppi Nadar @ Rajendiran Vs. State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Madath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 04.12.2015 made in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By judgment dated 04.12.2015, the Trial Court convicted him under the said charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.12,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The accused in this case is running a grocery shop at Narasingapuram, Tiruppur District. The decease...
S. Rajeswari Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, 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 respondents herein to issue patta in favour of the petitioner herein by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2010 in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent requesting him to issue a patta for 9 cents of her land in S.No.14/2 in T.Kallupatti Village. Since follow up action was not taken by the respondents, the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents. 3. The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.09.2010 on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the representation along wi...
Tvl.Kay Cee Plasto Pack, Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Pre Revision Notice in TIN 33325761473/2009-10 dated 23.03.2015 received by the petitioner on 27.03.2015 and quash the same and to direct to consider the objection filed by the Petitioner on 07.04.2015 received by the 2nd Respondent 09.04.2015 to accord a personal hearing before proceeding further the same.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a letter, dated 19.08.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Permission is granted. 3. Recording the said letter and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs....
M. Rukumani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secreta ...
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 respondents to grant parole for the period of 20 days from 24.08.2016 to 13.09.2016 to the petitioner's husband, namely, Karuppaiah @ Muthu, who is a life convict confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to make arrangements and to participate his daughter's marriage based upon the Rule 20(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 forthwith.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant parole for the period of 20 days from 24.08.2016 to 13.09.2016 to the petitioner's husband, namely, Karuppaiah @ Muthu, who is a life convict confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to make arrangements and to participate his daughter's marriage based upon the Rule 20(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the l...
A. Ravichandran Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner herein seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on his representation, dated 23.06.2016, within the time-frame that may be fixed by this Court. 2. Mr.M.Murugan, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 02.05.2007 and his service was regularised vide G.O(3D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (P3) Department, dated 31.07.2015 from the date of his initial appointment dated 04.05.2007. Having completed Bhavani Sagar Training on 08.10.2015, of course, with some delay in completing the said Training due to adm...
Ram Mandal and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kanch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, in S.C.No.192 of 2014 dated 28.11.2014.) Common Judgment 1. She, Miss.B.Umamaheswari, an young Software Engineer, at her early twenties, earning a fabulous annual income, working in a leading software company, having lot of hopes of achievements in her life, would have had no reason to anticipate, when she left the software company at 10.30 p.m. to her house, that her cruel end was fast approaching and that she would be thrown like a dust, after being ravished of her modesty, in a bush, as a lifeless body and that the police would be insensitive for sometime ever after report of her mysterious disappearance. Yes. she was in the news in the print and electronic media for quite some time. After her mangled decomposed body was found after ten days, there were lot of hue and cry f...
S.M. Raja Vs. The Director, (Vigilance and Anti corruption) and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to direct the second respondent to register a case on the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 17.06.2016.) 1. S.M. Raja, the petitioner herein seeks a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Theni District, to register a case on the basis of his complaint dated 17.06.2016, investigate and file the final report. 2. The Raja presented his complaint on 17.06.2016 to the first respondent viz., Director General of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai. As there was no further action, Raja invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ganesan, who was formally associated with the running of a Temple called Muthumariamman Temple situate in Andipatti As he has greased the palms of R.D.O., VAO, Thasildar, Collector, Judges, thus, it requires thorough ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »