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.
M/s. Susee Tractors by its Authorized Agent/Manager, R.V. Chakravarthy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 07.04.2016 passed in Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2012, on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District and the judgment dated 10.04.2012, passed in C.C.No.376 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 07.04.2016 passed in Crl.R.C.No.26 of 2012, on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District and the judgment dated 10.04.2012, passed in C.C.No.376 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner lodged a prosecution in C.C.No.376 of 2011 against the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument ...
Shanthi Arvind Vs. The Local Planning Authority, Rep. by Member Secret ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its order bearing No.Ka.V.No.185/2012/TP1 dated 13.06.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to extend the time granted for completing the construction for another 1 year so as to enable the petitioner to complete the construction made in her property in survey No.1280/1,1281,1282/1 of Thatchanaloor Village by considering the application of the petitioner dated 07.04.2014) 1. Mrs. Shanthi Aravind has come forward with this Writ Petition to direct the authorities for granting extension of time to complete the construction put up by her in respect of the properties, referred to in the Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent herein granted approval to the petitioner for construction of building with the time limit from 13.07.201...
B. Sivaperumal Vs. State, rep.through, The Inspector of Police, Dindig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.504 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, in Cr.M.P.No.2004 of 2016 in Cr.M.P.No.1034 of 2016 in Crime No.55 of 2016, dated 13.07.2016.) Common Order 1. Since both the revisions have been directed as against a common order and are connected on factual matrix, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.504 of 2016 has been filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.55 of 2016, as against dismissal of his Crl.M.P.No.2004 of 2016, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. 3. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.505 of 2016 has been filed by the same de facto complainant in the same crime number as against dismissal of his Crl.M.P.No.2005 of 2016 by the very same Court. 4. On 13.02.2016, a strange event took place. A vehicle carrying cartons of different varieti...
K. Kamalam Vs. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Ari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents concerned to pay a sum of Rs.11,94,000/- towards compensation, for the death of the petitioner's son, caused by electrocution due to the negligence of the respondent.) Heard 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents concerned to pay a sum of Rs.11,94,000/-, as compensation, for the death of the petitioner's son, by electrocution, due to the negligence of the respondents concerned. 3. The petitioner has stated that she has been working as a Coolie. She had two sons, namely, Vigneshwaran and Vaithishwaran. Both the sons of the petitioner were working as Load men, at Kanthapachetty Street, Kothavalchavadi, Chennai. At about, 10.00 p.m., on 12.10.2011, the elder son of the petitioner had parked his vehicle, near the electric post. When he had...
Palanisamy Shanmugam Vs. The District Collector, Tirupur District, Pal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the fifth respondent or its subordinate official, men or agents or anybody claiming through the fifth respondent from carrying out any construction work in S.Nos.429 and 437 of Veerapandi Village, Tirupur Taluk and District.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on be half of respondents 1 to 4. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the fifth respondent or its subordinate official, men or agents or anybody claiming through the fifth respondent from carrying out any construction work in S.Nos.429 and 437 of Veerapandi Village, Tirupur Taluk and District. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in S.Nos.429 and 437 of Veerapandi Vi...
C. Kanniappan Vs. R.P. Nandagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Order and Decreetal order passed on 31.03.2011 made in I.A.No.30 of 2010 in O.S.No.23 of 2006, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.23 of 20066 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.30 of 2010 in O.S.No.23 of 2006, dated 31.03.2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 735 days for setting aside the exparte decree dated 25.10.2006. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he filed the suit for specific performance against this petitioner / defendant, to seek direction to the defendant to perform the sale agreement dated 02.09.2004. Pursuant to the sale agreement dated 02.09.2004, the suit was decreed as exparte on 25.10.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed petition in E.P.No.9 of 2007 for execu...
M. Sivalingam Vs. Rajini Mahalingam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants for the following: (a) declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, Flat No.G-3, No.43, Old No.18 and 19, 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020, morefully described in the Schedule hereunder and consequently direct the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. (b) pay a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from June 2004 to March 2007. (c) Pay Rs.40,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the premises for two months i.e., April and May 2007. (d) Pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards future damages at the rate of from 01.06.2007 till the date of decree and thereafter also at the same rate till the date of the defendants vacating and handing over the suit property to the plaintiff. (e)...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
V.M. Velumani, J. The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 1 in two crime numbers, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120(b) read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC., in Crime Nos.5 and 4 of 2016 respectively on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12078 of 2016 / Crime No.4 of 2016 is that the petitioner/A2 was working as Assistant Manager [Legal] in HDFC Bank Ltd., at Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Branches. A1 was working as Receptionist. A3 and A4 are the husband and wife. A5 is the father of A1. A6 is the close friend of A1 and A3. On 01.02.2013, A3 applied for housing loan to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/-. A3 produced his xerox copies of Voter I.D. and Bank Pass Book. Further, he gave documents of 23 acres and 63 cents of agricultural land in S.Nos.892/1, 892/2, 893/1A and 893/1B3 as security. A3 identified the agric...
J. Johnbosco @ Jegan Vs. Venkatesan, Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015.) 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. It is seen that in Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015, this Court passed the following order; The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has sent a compliant dated 21.07.2015 by post to the respondents. The petitioner is directed to go in person and give a complaint to the third respondent and on such complaint being given, the same shall be enquired into in accordance with law, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government ...
U. Chellapandi Vs. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable End ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.30436/2015/Z2 dated 16.07.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.) 1. The petitioner/Mr.V.Chellapandi has challenged the information furnished under Right to Information Act and also another order, dated 16.07.2015, issued by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kudal Alagar Thirukovil, Madurai, wherein, the first respondent has appointed the fourth respondent Mr.Gnanaguru as Driver. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when a paper publication was made by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kudal Alagar Thirukovil, Madurai, the third respondent herein, inviting the application for the post of Driver belonging to the third respondent's ve...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »