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.
Subramaniam Vs. The State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Erode Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 30.03.2016, made in Special S.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. He stood charged for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 506-II of IPC. By judgment, dated 30.03.2016, the trial Court convicted him under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, he has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The accused is a resident of Vaikalpudur village, V.Ramanathapuram, in Erode District. He is aged about 58 years. The victim in this c...
M/s. MRF Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order in ITA.No.1377/Mds/2010, dated 06.11.2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Chennai.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Instant Tax Case Appeal is filed, challenging the order in ITA.No.1377/Mds/2010, dated 06.11.2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Chennai. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: For the assessment year 2007-08, the appellant-Company filed return of income on 29.10.2007, admitting a total income of Rs.138,47,34,567/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai, respondent herein, made the following additions/dis-allowances and completed the assessment on 21.12.2009, determining the total income at Rs.142,58,72,271/-, (1) The amortization of amount paid in respect of leasehold land of Rs.947,146 was disallowed. (2) Amount of Rs.1,92,63,136 was disallowed u/s.14A r/w.Rule 8D as the expe...
D. Samson Rathinakumar Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(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 preferred by the Petitioner on 11.5.2015 within the time frame 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 wanted to purchase a new double barrel gun for security purpose, as there are heavy financial transactions in his business. Hence the Petitioner made an application before the Second Respondent/The District Revenue Officer/District Additional Magistrate, Tuticorin, seeking issuance of arms license. 5. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District and the Tahsildar, Tuticorin had gave no objection to recommend for the gun license in question. However, the District Forest Officer, Tuticorin ha...
P. Thandapani Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.06.2016 and to provide Patta for Village Natham situates in Dindigul District, Dindigul West Taluk, Palakkanoothu Village, Natham S.F. (Old) No.812 and New No.1248/2.) 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 having a thatched house in S.F.(old).No.812 and New No.1248/2 of Thatharkavundanur, Nalupulikkottai, Palakkanoothu Village, Dindigul West Taluk. Originally his grandfather viz., Pethan constructed a thatched house in the above said Natham land and lived there. After his demise, his father peacefully enjoyed the house and land in the above said village. Soon after his demise, the petitioner is peacefully living in the aforesaid land and enjoying the...
S. Chandrasekaran Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumb ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner as per the 4th benefit with retrospective effect from 01.09.2010 in terms of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport (C) Department dated 30.04.2015 and as per settlement dated 22.01.2011 based on the representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2015 and 19.09.2015.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not given the benefits both under the Settlement and as per the Government Order. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Corporation, afte...
Sengoda Gounder and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, Economic offe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned communication vide C.No.117/DSP/EOW-II/MDU/2012 dated 18.07.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to register the document with regard to the S.No.114/1 in Puthiragoundampalayam and S.No.292/2A New S.No.432/6 in Aethappur Village, Athur Taluk, Salem District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned communication vide C.No.117/DSP/EOW-II/MDU/2012 dated 18.07.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to register the document with regard to the S.No.114/1 in Puthiragoundampalayam and S.No.292/2A New S.No.432/6 in Aethappur Village, Athur Taluk, Salem District.2. The petitioners are the husband and wife and the parents of one S.Pr...
Nirmala and Others Vs. R. Rani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decreetal and fair order made in EASR No.172 of 2016 in EP No.124 of 2014 in O.S.No.47 of 1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram dated 16.2.2016 in rejecting the application duly taken out under Section 47 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the execution petition in EP No.124 of 2014.) 1. Challenging the Order passed by the Sub Court, Kancheepuram in E.A.S.R.No.172/2016 in E.P.No.124/2014 in O.S.No.47/1998, the Judgment Debtors have filed the above civil revision petition. 2. Pursuant to the decree passed in the Suit in O.S.No.47/1998, the Decree Holders filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.124/2014. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the decree holders filed a Suit in O.S.No.47/1998 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamalee for recovery of possession. After contest, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and on the appeal, preferred by the plaintiff in A.S...
Abu Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in S.C.No.2 of 2012 dated 23.09.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram district. The first accused was one Mrs.Sathya wife of Mr.Muneeswaran. The second accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. and the accused 1 and 3 stood charged for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 23.09.2014, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under all the charges and sentenced the second accused to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years an...
K. Marichamy Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Information Commissio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to dispose the Appeal dated 16.09.2014 filed by the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent Commission within the time bound.) 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 preferred an Appeal before the First Respondent / Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai, on 16.09.2014 and issued reminder on 20.01.2015. Till date, the Appeal is kept pending for disposal, by the First Respondent's Office. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Appeal, dated 16.09.2014, is pending before the First Respondent / Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai, and also he sent a reminder on 20.01.2015, till date, the said Appeal is not yet disposed of. Therefore, he has preferred the present Writ P...
D. Thanislass Vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 and to release the petitioner's pending payments with regard to his completed various contract works.) 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 a registered civil works contractor in Sl.No.15 under Clause II and he was engaged by the respondents 4 and 5 for carrying several civil works in and around Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli Districts through valid contracts. All the works were executed by him only by way of tenders. He has constructed several bridges, channels and other civil works successfully to the public, as per the work orders issued by the respondents 4 and 5. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that in the year 2001 2002, he made some speci...
- ‹ Prev
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- Next ›
- Last »