Chennai Court August 2016 Judgments
M. Balasubramani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Offi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to take the application of the Petitioner, dated 08.01.2016 on its file and to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate or the Respondent. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, although he is having properties mentioned in the partition suit in O.S.No.38 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Pattukottai, he is suffering for money to meet his day-to-day expenses for himself and his family, for which, he is to depend on his near friends and relatives. He has no other source of income except the aforesaid properties. 5. In fact, he has filed a maintenance petition (The Revenue D...
Tag this Judgment!Thirunavukkarasu and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai. 2. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant, the 1st respondent has registered a case against these petitioners in Crime No.271 of 2012 on 18.07.2012 for offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 1998 and subsequently, it was altered into Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 1998. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are tenants of the 2nd respondent and they were asked to vacate the house without following the due process of law; the petitioners gave a representation ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. CMP-IR India Private Limited and Another Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation.) Common Order: 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company with effect from 01.04.2015. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure '5' to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.144 of 2016 is the transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.145 of 2016 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there is no secured creditor as far as transferor company as well as transferee company are concerned and the certificates of the Chartered Accountant confirming the same are appended as Annexure '7' to these petitions. 3.1. A copy of two separate resolutions dated 21.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. CAG Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Government of India, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the passing of the impugned order bearing F.No.373/48/SL/03-RA.CUS Order No.120/04, dated 31.03.2004 passed by the first respondent and the consequential denovo order bearing C.No.VIII/10/9/96-CUS.Adj Order No.4/2004-JC (Denovo), dated 26.08.2004 by the third respondent to quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,26,761/- paid under protest and without prejudice .) 1. Heard Mr.Dominic S.David, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Central Government standing counsel for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. In this writ petition, correctness of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority as slightly modified by the Revisional Authority involving shortland...
Tag this Judgment!M. Manimaran and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer in all the appeals:- Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.142 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J.) 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 12 and 14 to 28 in S.C.No.142 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The trial Court framed as many as 10 charges against the accused as detailed below: ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section1A1 to A28148 of IPC2A1 to A28120(B) of IPC3A6 to A28452 of IPC4A1 to A5452 r/w 149 of IPC5A6 to A28341 of IPC6A1 to A5341 r/w 149 of IPC7A6 to A283(1) of TNPPDL Act8A1 to A53(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 of IPC9A6 to A28506(ii) of IPC10A1 to A5506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC The accused No.13 Mr.Kannan @ Thiruttu Kannan died during the pendency of the trial and thus the charges framed against him stood abated. By judgment dated 21.12.2015, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu Rao and Another Vs. Raveendran and Other
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders dated 11.09.2014 made in W.P.No.9834 of 2014.) 1. When Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that a sum of Rs.4,95,395/- has already been transferred to the account of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1273 of 2015 submitted that a direction should be given to the respondents or to the concerned Bank to pay 50% of the amount to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 submitted that after paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the mother of the deceased, the remaining amount would be apportioned among the petitioners. In short, the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 has agreed to pay the proportionate share to the petitioner in Cont....
Tag this Judgment!P. Sudhagar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Na ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TDD-1357 seized by the Second Respondent on 28.07.2016, to the Petitioner.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. According to the Petitioner, his Lorry bearing registration No.TDD-1357 was seized by the Second Respondent on 28.07.2016 on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport five bags of rice (each contains 50 Kgs), 10 Kgs of Toor Dhal and 10 Kgs of Moong Dhal. After seizure of the vehicle, the Second Respondent produced the vehicle before the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 4. It appears that after seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner made a detail representation on 29.07.2016 addressed to the Firs...
Tag this Judgment!R. Natesan and Others Vs. State represented by The Deputy Superintende ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.432 of 2013 dated 06.04.2016 against the appellants.) S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellants are A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.432 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Sessions Judge, Chennai. They stood charged for offences under Sections 147 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. There were two other accused by name Mr.Ashok Kumar and Mr.Rajmohan who were arrayed as A.4 and A.5. By judgment dated 06.04.2016, the trial Court acquitted A.4 and A.5 however, convicted A.1 to A.3/the appellants herein under both the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and they were acquitted from the charge under Section 147 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the appellants/A.1 to A.3 are before this ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganeshraja Vs. The Deputy Salt Commissioner, Officer of the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput made in A.S.No.6 of 2003 dated 29.07.2004 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Chingleput made in O.S.No.12 of 1996 dated 19.11.2002.) 1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Radha Devadoss, from whom he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1990. The plaintiff's vendor got title to the said property in pursuant to a decree for partition granted in O.S.No.460 of 1963 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras dated by way of passing a final decree on 19.12.1964. The suit property is registered in...
Tag this Judgment!Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research administered by Pavai Varam Ed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer in WP.No.20890/2016:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in F.No.Southern/2016/1-28666650481-LOR dated 30.04.2016, quash the same and further direct the respondents to conduct necessary inspection and grant recognition for the 4 year B.Pharm course conducted by the petitioner's college from the academic year 2016-17 by accepting the planning permission for the building granted by Kalyani Panchayat dated 20.02.2010.) Common Order 1. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions, is one and the same, they are disposed of by the following common order. WP.No.20890/2016:- 2. The Chairman of the petitioner / Trust, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, avers as follows:- [a] The Trust has started various Institutions and Colleges in and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »