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.
Mahender Kumar Gupta Vs. Nand Kishoreji Goel and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in terms of the Re Constituted Partnership Deed dated 07.11.1980.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in respect of the disputes arising out of the partnership deed dated 07.11.1980. The Partnership consisted of ten partners, two partners passed away and respondent Nos.8 and 9 are the legal heirs. 2. The partnership is at will and the petitioner has served notice for dissolution of partnership dated 26.09.2015. 3. The partnership deed contains the Arbitration Clause-21, which reads as under: ''21. In case of dispute(s) that could not be settled in the manner explained in the forgone clause, the same shall be referred to Artbitration and the Proceedings of the Arbitration shall be under the Indian Arbitration Act, then in force.'' 4. The oppo...
D. Susairaj Vs. The District Treasury Officer, Perambalur and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to repay the recovered amount of Rs.1,19,735/- with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum and to pay the cost of the writ petition.) 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to repay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,19,735/-, recovered from his pensionary benefits, along with the interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. The petitioner has stated that he was working, as a P.G. Assistant (English), in C.S.I. Boys Higher Secondary School, Erode. He had retired from service, on 30.8.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation. It has also been stated that the pension proposals, made on behalf of the petitioner, had also been sanctioned, based on which the petitioner has been drawing his pension, as per his last drawn pay. ...
Gajendran Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 29.03.2007 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Court, CBI Cases, Coimbatore.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment dated 29.03.2007 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Court, CBI Cases, Coimbatore, in and by which, he was convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder: ad>Sl. No.Convictionunder SectionSentence of imprisonmentFine1Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption ActRigorous imprisonment for six monthsRs.200/-, in default to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment2Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption ActRigorous imprisonment for one yearRs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant to run concurrently. 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellant is that P.W.2/de...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
1. Before going into the issues involved, the background facts surrounding the case required for the proper narration are to be looked into. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. 3. The plaintiff is the company engaged in the business of education services and is listed at the National Stock Exchange as well as Bombay stock exchange. The second defendant was functioning as the Managing Director of the plaintiff till 13.02.2012 i.e. date of his resignation. Needless to state that he was incharge of the day to day operations of the plaintiff during the said period. 4. The first defendant company was incorporated in the year 2007 through the second defendant along with his daughter third defendant. They were also the promoters and Directors of the first defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 being the relatives of the second defendant and the employees of the plaintiff, were inducted as Directors in the first defendant company. Subsequently, the seventh ...
K. Petchimuthu Vs. The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to grant approval in favour of the 2nd respondent in the petitioner's property situated in Town Survey No.505/2, Elupamaram 2nd Street, Nagar Nagar, Dindigul Town, based on petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2016 within stipulated time period to be fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner herein seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent not to grant approval in favour of the second respondent as regards t he petitioner's property in Town Survey No.505/2, Elupamaram 2nd Street, Nagar Nagar, Dindigul Town, based on the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.03.2016. 2. The petitioner, after filing a suit in O.S.No.177 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, for permanent injunction against the second respondent not to construct any new house in the property in question, has come to this C...
M. Pandiarajan and Another Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Th ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the Hon'ble Court of III Additional Sessions Judge PCR Court, Madurai to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the same day in connection with Crime No.105 of 2016 pending on the file of the respondents.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned III Additional Sessions Judge PCR Court, Madurai to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the same day in connection with Crime No.105 of 2016 pending on the file of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant is the daughter of the petitioners; that she fell in love with on Sankaramurthy, who studied along with her in the college; both of them have married and the defacto complainant is now residing in the home of Sankaramurthy, pursuant to which, it is alleged that the parents use...
J. Usha Nandhini Vs. Union of India, rep.by the Secretary, New Delhi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent Tribunal pertaining to its order which is made in O.A.No.975 of 2013, dated 25.08.2014 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any one of the posts, on considering the petitioner's educational qualification.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the fourth respondent relating to the order passed in O.A.No.975 of 2013, dated 25.8.2014 and quash the same; consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2. The petitioner herein, as applicant, has filed O.A.No.975 of 2013, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein,...
V.R. Anusuya Devi and Others Vs. R. Bharathy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 20.01.2016 made in Application No.3553 of 2015 in T.O.S.No.11 of 2008 (O.P.No.860 of 2007).) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.01.2016 rejecting Application No.3553 of 2015 filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 1573 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.12.2010 passed in T.O.S.No.11 of 2008. 2. The appellants are the progenies of the testatrix who is stated to have executed the last Will and Testament dated 29.07.2005 in respect of her properties. The Will is duly registered. The testatrix died on 07.02.2006. 3. The appellants and other legal heirs were all served and lodged caveat and thus, the original petition was converted into a T.O.S. on 20.03.2008. The appellants entered appearance through counsel, but cho...
R. Devaraj Vs. V. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.03.2011 made in I.A.No.49 of 2011 in O.S.No.1713 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.) 1. This petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16.03.2011 made in I.A.No.49 of 2011 in O.S.No.1713 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1713 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note alleged to have been executed on 01.11.2003. The defendant/petitioner herein engaged a counsel to appear in the above suit. Subsequently, the petitioner did not contact his counsel to file his written statement, since he fell ill. Therefore, the said suit was decreed ex parte on 18.03.2010 and hence, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.49 of 2011 ...
Palani Vs. State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Kanchipuram Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 29.02.1016 made in S.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge -II, Kanchipuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge No.2 Kanchipuram. He stood charged for offences under Section 302, 307, 324 (2 counts) and 326 IPC. By judgment dated 29.02.2016, the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302, 324 (2 counts) and 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count for offence under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The Trial Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »