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.
A. Akkini Vs. The District Collector, Madurai 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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 23.6.2016 and issue patta in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the properties in UDR S.No.140/7, New. S.No.104/7 of Arumbanur-II Village, Madurai.) 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, the lands measuring an extent of 1 acre and 97 cents of Arumbanur II Village, Madurai in UDR S.No.140/7, New. S.No.104/7, originally belongs to his father Akkini Ambalam and he expired on 09.12.1995. During his father's life time, he reportedly mortgaged the property to one Veerapathiran. Since he failed to repay the amount, a suit in O.S.No.301 of 1986 was filed on the file of the Learned III Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same...
Elavarasan Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.372 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore @ Vridhachalam, made in S.C.No.103 of 2013 dated 10.07.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondents 2 to 5. The respondents 2 to 5 were accused in S.C.No.103 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. The final report was filed by the 1st respondent. The trial court framed as many as 4 charges as detailed below : ad>Sl.No.Charge NumberRank of AccusedPenal Provision1Charge No.1Accused Nos.1 to 4148 of IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.1 to 4449 of IPC3Charge No.3Accused Nos.1 and 2302 of IPC4Charge No.4Accused Nos.3 and 4302 r/w.149 of IPC By judgment dated 10.07.2014, the trial court acquitted all the accused from all the charges. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellant, who is the son of the deceased, has come up with this appeal. 2. Seeking re...
G. Manavalan Vs. The District Collector (cum), The Regional Transport ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: This 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 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2016 to take appropriate action under Section 86(b) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that he is given permission to operate the bus services between Dindigul to Madurai (via) Koadai Road, Vadipatti and Samayanallur and TN58X 8286 between Dindigul to Madurai (via) Koadai Road, Vadipatti and Samayanallur, with valid permit. Similarly, one Maruthu Transport is given permission to operate the bus services between Madurai to Dindigul (via) Samayanallur, Nagari, Sholavandhan, Karattupatti, Pandiarajapuram, Pallapatti Pirivu, Kodai Road and Dindigul. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner projected by the petitioner is that though the permit is given to the said Maruthu Transport, as indicated above, violating the conditions stipulated unde...
Sanjay Goel, Managing Partner, Goel Steel Company, Chennai Vs. Dongsan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to seeks to quash the complaint filed by the second respondent before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur under Section 190(1)(a) and 200 of Criminal Procedure Code for alleged offences under Sections 268, 269, 278 and 290 IPC. 1. This Criminal original Petition has been filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the complaint filed by the second respondent before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, for the alleged offences under Sections 268, 269, 278 and 290 IPC. 2. It is averred in the petition that the complaint does not clearly reveal whether the allegation is against the individual or the Partnership Firm and that the petitioner, namely, M/s. Goel Steel Company does not have anything to do with the SIPCOT plot and the lessee of the plot is M/s. Sanjay Steel Syndicate and the petitioner, Sanjay Goel is a par...
Sivan @ Siva and Another Vs. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeals against the judgment, dated 19.08.2015, made in S.C.No.238 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 2 and 1 respectively in S.C.No.238 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Dharmapuri. They stood charged for the offences, as detailed below : ad>Sl.NoAccusedSection of law1A-1364 I.P.C.2A-2364 read with 34 I.P.C.3A-1 and A-2397 I.P.C.4A-1 and A-2302 I.P.C.5A-1 and A-2201 read with 302 I.P.C. By judgment, dated 19.08.2015, the trial Court convicted them as under : ad>AccusedSection of lawSentenceA-1364 I.P.C.Life imprisonmentA-2364 r/w.34 I.P.C.Life imprisonmentA-1 and A-2397 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and fine of Rs.1000/- each ; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.A.1 and A.2302 I.P.C.Life imprisonment each and to pay of Rs.1000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.A-1 and A-2201 r/w. 302 I.P.C.Rigoro...
Yakoob Vs. The District Revenue Officer, 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 first respondent to release the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-12-A-2316 seized by the second respondent on 27.6.2016 to the Petitioner.) 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 1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. No.KA-12-A-2316 and that the Second Respondent/The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Department, Dindigul had seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle in question was used to transport 187 bags of PDS Rice(each containing 50 Kgms of rice). After seizure of the vehicle, the Second Respondent registered a case against the Petitioner and nine others, in Crime No.146 of 2016, for the offence alleged under Clause 6(4) of TNSC(RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(i)...
S. Ugavani Vs. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2016 in O.S.No.963 of 2016 on 06.07.2016.) 1. This revision arises against the order of learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2016 in O.S.No.963 of 2016 on 06.07.2016. 2. Respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.963 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, seeking a declaration that the settlement deed dated 14.08.2015 registered as Document No.6394 of 2015 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Gandhipuram, was null and void and other consequential reliefs. Respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1192 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction. Court below, under the impugned order, granted ex parte ad interim injunction. Aggrieved, petitioner/defendant has filed this revision. 3. Heard Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Gandhi, learned se...
P. Anand Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Ari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to carry out the correction such as father's name as P.Anand instead of M.Saravanan in the petitioner's son's birth certificate in C.A.R.949/06 dated 09.03.2006 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.07.2016.) 1. Mr.P.Anand, has come to this Court directing the second respondent to carry out the correction in his son's Birth Certificate. 2. The case of the petitioner is that out of wedlock between the petitioner and one Sri Rangaselvi, he was blessed with a male child, by name, Surjith Ajay, born in Raghavendra Hospital, Madurai. The hospital authorities communicated the birth details of the son of the petitioner to the second respondent for the purpose of issuing a Birth Certificate, who in turn, also issued a Certificate. While so, when the petitioner applied for passport to his son, the petitioner ca...
S. Ramadevi Vs. The Special Officer, Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
1. The appellant was employed as a Chief Accountant with the Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills / first respondent from November 1992 to March 1997. The controversy to be examined in the present appeal commences from an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') ordered by the Commissioner for Sugar on 10.04.2000 for the loss caused to the Mill in respect of the period from July 1993 to December 1995. At the relevant point of time, the enquiry was not only against the appellant, but also against the third respondent, who was the Selection Grade Assistant and the fourth respondent, who was working as an Accountant in the Mill. 2. In the aforesaid proceedings, there was allegation of fabrication of documents relating to remittances made to different institutions and the three incumbents were held for having acted negligently to cause loss to the Mill. The remittances which were made from the salary of the employees ...
S. Thangavelu Vs. Union of India, rep.by the Chief Postmaster General, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of 4th respondent which is made in O.A.No.1572 of 2011 dated 24.09.2013 and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant 3rd MACP benefit and to pay the arrears of difference of pay and allowances to the petitioner and also revise and re-fix the pensionary benefits and to pay the difference of arrears of pension and connected terminal benefits to the petitioner.) A. Selvam, J. 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 pertaining to the order passed by the fourth respondent in Original Application No.1572 of 2011, dated 24.09.2013 and quash the same and also for directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein, as applicant, h...