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.
Kamaraj Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.102 of 2005 by judgement dated 26.09.2006.) 1. A3 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.102 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is the appellant. 2. In the said Court, after trial, on 26.09.2006, he was found guilty and sentenced as detailed below: ConvictionSentenceSection 452 I.P.C.1 year R.I. plus fine Rs.500/- i/d 2 months S.I.Section 324 I.P.C.2 years S.I. plus fine Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amounts paid. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under: (i) P.W.1 is having his 'Disco Ready Made Shop' in Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. A1 was his tenant. A1 run his workshop there. A2 and A3 are acquaintance of A1. P.W.1 demanded A1 to vacate the premises. A1 had agreed to vacate on 05.08.2000. However, A1's fat...
Lakshmirajan Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to release the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.TN 76 S 3562 and TN 76 S 3561 to the Petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, 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, he is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos.TN 76 S 3562 and TN 76 S 3561. He has purchased the vehicle in the year 2012. He bought the permit from the Regional Transport Authority and the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. When that be the factual situation, on 15.7.2016 the Petitioner used his vehicle to take the clay sand, which is used for manufacturing bricks by getting necessary permission from one Gurunathan at Sivagiri. In fact, he obtained permit and the time was given from 12.35 p.m. To 3....
Latcham Sports Club, rep.By its Secretary K. Thangaraj, and Others Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned circular issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.417/2016/B, dated 21.07.2016, quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner club is a non-proprietary club running after obtaining proper F.L.2 licence from the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. In fact, the petitioner/club had served liquor only to their members and it does not amount to sale. In fact, the Second Respondent has only a role to distribute liquor to the petitioner and has no authority to ask for TIN Registration Certificate. 4. The clear cut stand of the petitioner is that it was not under the Sale Tax Net, becau...
C. Pandithurai Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct survey and measurement of the Petitioner's properties as per his title documents comprised in T.S.Nos.9/4, 14/6, 12/1, 11/2, 13/3, 13/4, 16/8 and 15/10 situated in Ward -D, Block-29, Karungattankulam Village, Chinnamanur Municipality, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District as per the applications dated 11.4.2016 and 20.6.2016 given to the Respondents 1 and 4 respectively, within a reasonable time.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, 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, he is entitled to survey and measurement of his properties purchased by him and in the name of his wife as per the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act and the Rules made thereunder. In this regard, the Petitioner su...
P. Palaniswamy Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(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 retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 05.08.2016.) 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 respondent 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 respondent 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, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits th...
K. Asokan and Another Vs. Ambi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2010 made in O.S.No.112 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai.) 1. The plaintiff, who lost the legal battle before the Court below, has come forward with this Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.112 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 3. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.112 of 2004 stating that the properties are belonging to the second defendant/ second respondent and the first defendant/first respondent entered into a sale agreement with the second defendant/second respondent. On 09.12.2000, a sale agreement between the first defendant/first respondent and the plaintiffs had taken place and one kuzhi is estimated ...
M/s. Sabari Exim Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Shas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the order, passed in Arbitration in O.P.No.56 of 2014, dated 26.06.2014.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.06.2014 in O.P.No.56 of 2014, allowing the original petition, holding that the Foreign Award, dated 28.02.2013 is enforceable. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows : (i) The respondent, Sims Metal Management Ltd., (for brevity Sims), a company domiciled in Australia and the appellant, Sabari Exim Pvt., Ltd., (for brevity Sabari), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 entered into a contract, dated 07.05.2012 for sale by the Sims to the Sabari for import of 30000 MT steel scrap plus / minus 5 percent at the sellers option. (ii) As per Clause 5 of the Contract, the appellant company (Sabari) was to establish 100% irrevocable Letter of credit for 100% of the contract value latest by 14.05....
Murugesan Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar Thanjavur District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent herein in pursuant to impugned notice dated Nil and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. It comes to be known that the Respondent had issued a notice dated NIL under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act Act, 1899, requiring the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.1,06,208/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Two Hundred and Eight) towards stamp duty and registration charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Earlier, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 27.02.2016, addressed to the Respondent, inter alia stating that there is no scope under the Indian Registration Act to claim the stamp duty etc, in...
M. Rajendran Vs. The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayats, Tric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.Aa1/565/2013, dated 26.10.2015 and to quash the same.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has submitted a letter, dated 16.8.2016 to the Registry seeking permission of this Court, to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
M. Glittaus Vs. The District Revenue officer, Tirunelveli District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the Swaraj Mazda Tempo bearing registration No. TN-75-H-6098 seized by the second respondent on 12.07.2015 to the petitioner and thus render justice.) 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, he is the owner of the Swaraj Mazda Tempo bearing Regn.No.TN-75-H-6098 and he is plying his vehicle for transporting agricultural products. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.07.2015, the Second Respondent/Inspector of Police seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport 70 bags of rice (each containing 50 kgs) and after seizure of the vehicle, a case was registered in Cr.No.144 of 2015 in respect of the alleged offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) o...