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.
V.S. Ekambaram and Others Vs. The Appellate Authority, Chennai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayers: W.A.No.3037 of 2002 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.07.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7353 of 1999. W.P.No.9079 of 1999 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26.03.1999 in G.A.No.60/98 confirming the order of the third respondent in G.A.No.38/96 dated 02.09.1998 and quash the same.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 22.07.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.7353 of 1999 and W.P.No.11613 of 2000. 2. W.P.No.9079 of 1999 has been filed to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26.03.1999 in G.A.No.60/98 confirming the order of the third respondent in G.A.No.38/96 dated 02.09.1998. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions, from which the present writ appeals have arisen, are as follows: (i) W.P.No.7353 of 1999 was f...
P. Suresh and Another Vs. State through by the Inspector of Police, Vi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case No.822 of 2016 filed under Section 397 read wtih 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Spl.Case No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and set aside the charges framed on 27.04.2016 as against the petitioners. Criminal Revision Case No.226 of 2016 filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1843 of 2014 in Spl.Case No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.) Common Order: Criminal Revision Case No.822 of 2016 is filed to call for the records in Spl.Case No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and set aside the charges framed on 27.04.2016 as against the petitioners/A3 and A4. 2. Criminal Revision Case No.226 of 2016 filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1843 of 2014 in Spl.Case No....
D. Rajan Dev Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.10.2013 made in W.P.No.18238 of 2013.) Huluvadi G.Ramesh, J. 1. This appeal by the writ petitioner is against the order passed by the learned single Judge, holding that the appellant/writ petitioner is liable to pay the premium FSI charges at the rates prevailing on the date of approval, solely on the ground that the second respondent-CMDA is entitled to calculate the levy of premium FSI charges taking into account the guideline rate prevalent as on the date of filing of the application for approval of the additional construction and not from the date on which the approval is being granted. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Mahajan Industries Ltd., and another, (2005) 10 SCC 203. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner, being a developer, is s...
A. Chinnaiah Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(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 application dated 31.3.2016 and to issue the patta in the Petitioner's name for the nanja land bearing S.No.85/1 measuring an extent of 1.21.0 hectares situated at Amaradakki Group, Avudaiyarkovil Union, Pudukkottai District 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 is the absolute owner of the property bearing S.No.85/1, measuring an extent of 1.21.0 hectares situated at Amaradakki Group, Avudaiyarkovil Union, Pudukkottai District. He purchased the property by means of registered sale deed, dated 11.3.2016, vide Document No.156/16 from one K.Rajakumari, who inherited the above property from her father and the revenue d...
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vs. Sundar @ Sundaresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District, made in S.C.No.123 of 2008, dated 03.05.2010.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The State is the appellant. The respondent was the sole accused in S.C.No.123 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District. He stood charged for offences under Sections 450, 302 and 309 of IPC. By judgment dated 03.05.2010, the trial court acquitted the respondent from all the charges. Challenging the same, the State has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Radhika. P.W.1 is her mother-in-law. P.W.4 is her husband. P.W.4 and the deceased were residing in their own house at Ottappatti Kollakkottai Village. P.W.1 was residing with her hu...
M. Kanagaraj and Others Vs. M. Siriram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2005 passed in A.S.No.162 of 2005 on the file of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.666 of 2004 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. The defendants, who lost the legal battle in both the Court below has filed the second appeal to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2005 passed in A.S.No.162 of 2005 on the file of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.666 of 2004 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction stating that the 1st plaint schedule property is originally belonged to one V.M.Mohamed Mohideen Sahim. Later, it was sold to the father of the plaintiff viz., Muthaiah M...
Natesan and Another Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Common Order 1. While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, to efface the evidence recorded on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 in S.C. No.34 of 2005, Criminal Original Petition No.6439 of 2015 has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, to any other District and Sessions Court. Criminal Original Petition Nos. 6941 and 7356 of 2016 have been filed to set aside the common order in C.M.P. Nos.19 and 53 of 2016 respectively in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem. 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3 On 22.06.2016, this Court passed the following order: While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, ...
A.C. Mathivanan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act against the order and decree dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Family Court Judge, Tirunelveli in HMOP No.232 of 2015.) B. Gokuldas, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2016, made in H.M.O.P.No.232 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants for divorce by mutual consent. 2. According to the appellants, their marriage was solemnised on 20.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and due to certain misunderstanding, they are living separately from 18.07.2014 onwards. Since they were not able to live jointly as husband and wife and there is no possibility of re-union, with free and mutual consent, a joint petition was filed by them in H.M.O.P.No.232 of 2015 before the Family Court, Tirunelveli, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred as the Act) for di...
Saraswathi Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the pending document No.269/2014 on the file of the 3rd Respondent by assigning regular serial number to the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent/Sub Registrar Joint II, Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul has no authority to keep the settlement deed as pending without passing any orders. Further, it is the stand of the petitioner that the third respondent should have seen that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioner and her son. As a matter of fact, the authorities have no jurisdiction to keep the document as pending one, without any authority of Law. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner projects an argument that the claim of the third respondent is that when the petitioner's son viz., Sa...
RM. Arun Swaminathan Vs. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Siv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to laying road by following the guidelines prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and after construction of proper drainage system at Mothilal Street and Perumal Kovil Sannithi Street, Kandanur Town Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to laying road by following the guidelines prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and after construction of proper drainage system at Mothilal Street and Perumal Kovil Sannithi Street, Kandanur Town Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, party-in-Person, has submitted that Chettinad consists of a network of 73 villages and two towns forming clusters spread over a territory of 1550 km.Square in the District of Sivagangai and Pudukottai District. The Chettinad ...
- ‹ Prev
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- Next ›
- Last »