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.
B.G. Vijayakumar Vs. D. Mariappan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair order and decree passed in I.A.No.4296 of 2012 in O.S.No.8494 of 1998 dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. There is a delay of 535 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).SR.No.57762 of 2015. 2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner, who is a 3rd party to the proceedings, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.4296 of 2012 in O.S.No.8494 of 1998 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.8494 of 1998 for specific performance. 4. The trial Court passed an exparte decree on 20.10.2000. After 12 years from the date of passing of the decree, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4296 of 2012 to implead himself in the suit. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and the trial Court di...
Anbalagan and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Namakk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Exclusive trial of Bomb Blast cases), Chennai @ Poonamallee in S.C.No.6 of 2009 dated 26.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.295 of 2015 are the accused 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.347 of 2015 is the third accused in S.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Exclusive trial of Bomb Blast cases), Chennai @ Poonamallee. The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the above stated three accused as detailed below: Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under Section1A1 to A3120(B) of IPC2A1 to A3447 of IPC3A1 to A33 of Explosive Substances Act, 19084A1 to A3302 of IPCBy judgment dated 26.03.2015, the trial Court convicted these appellants / accused 1 to 3 for various offences as detailed below: Rank of the AccusedPenal provisio...
A. Senthilkumar Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Information Commis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(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 dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner dated 23.2.2015 before the first respondent/Commission within the time bound fixed by this Court.) 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 preferred an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act before the First Respondent on 23.2.2015 and purportedly sent reminders on 13.7.2015 and 11.5.2016 respectively. It appears that the said appeal was not taken on file by the First Respondent. 5.The grievance of the Petitioner is that no number was assigned to his appeal by the First Respondent and after numbering of the same, the matter requires disposal in the hands of the First Respondent. Hence the Petitioner has filed th...
Palanisamy and Another Vs. The State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeals against the judgment, dated 20.10.2014, made in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Court-cum-Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 2 and 1 in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Sessions Court, Erode. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 394,302 and 449 IPC. By judgment, dated 20.10.2014, the trial Court convicted them under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 449 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 394 IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay file of Rs.25,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court directed t...
Aswath Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2015 dated 31.08.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. He stood charged for offence under Section 376(2) I.P.C. By Judgment dated 31.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under the said charge and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to under simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1.The accused approximately aged about 27 years is a resident of Thiginari village in Sathyamangalam Taluk at Erode District. P.W.2 a young girl aged 17 years ...
The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi and Others Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent-Tribunal in O.A.No.310/00489/2014 dated 25-03-2014 and quash the same.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the order dated 25-03-2014 passed in O.A.No.310/00489/2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. 2. The respondents herein as applicants have filed O.A.No.310/00489/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench wherein the present petitioners have been arrayed as respondents. 3. In the Original Application, it is averred that the first applicant is an Association of Retired Employees of Postal Department represented by its Secretary, the second applicant is its President and the third applicant is one of the members of the said Association. Further, it is averred in ...
K. Dhanavelu Vs. K.S.M. Venugopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 11.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.324 of 2010 in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Vandavasi.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. 2. The short facts of this case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on 1.6.2006, based on the Pro-note dated 20.5.2003. The plaint was returned by the Trial Court on 5.6.2006 pointing out certain defects including deficit court fee in filing the suit. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff re-presented the plaint on 24.7.2006 with an application under section 151 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 34 days i...
P. Karuppiah Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry initiated as per proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1012/2015/a1, dated 13.2.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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 has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent to complete the enquiry initiated as per proceedings, dated 13.2.2015, within the time to be stipulated by this Court. 5. The case of the Petitioner is that in the present case, a patta was issued in the name of a wrong person, who has no connection whatsoever with the land bearing S.No.20/7 in Sendurai Village. When the same was brought to the notice of the Respondents, the Respondents...
Sree Krishna Education Trust, Represented by its Founder and Managing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in proceedings No.E1/AC.131/II.4/2016 dated 03.07.2016 issued by the 5th Respondent and quash the same.) 1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the impugned order, in proceedings No.E1/AC.131/II.4/2016, dated 03.07.2016, issued by the Fifth Respondent/Registrar, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. 2. The Long Germane Writ Facts:- 2.1. The Petitioner/College of Agricultural Technology, Theni, Theni District was started in the academic year 2010-2011 based on the sanction of the First Respondent/Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Agriculture Department, followed by affiliation accorded by the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. As a matter of fact, a Memorandum of Unders...
M/s. Southern Chromatics Private Limited and Another Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(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 '6' to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.519 of 2015 is the transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.520 of 2015 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 '9' to these petitions. 3.1. A copy of two separate resolutions of even date, i.e., 29.09.2015, passed by th...