Chennai Court September 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.
P. Selvaraj and Others Vs. S. Kathiresan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 27-06-2008 made in O.S.No.291 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court II) Coimbatore.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-06-2008 passed in O.S.No.281 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore. 2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted O.S.No.291 of 2006 on the file of Trial Court praying to pass a decree of specific performance, in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 20-01-2006 wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants. 3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the business partners and carrying their business in Chennai. The defendants 2 to 10 are the absolute owners of the suit properties. The first defendant is the Power Agent of fourth to tenth defendants, by virtue of Power Deed dated 13-10-2005...
Thagadu @ Balakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in detention order passed in C.O.C.No.15/2016, dated 24.06.2016 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner, namely Thagadu @ Balakrishnan, S/o.Mani, Male, aged 27 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu. He has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 24.06.2016, in C.O.C.No. 15/2016, under Section 2(b) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Bootlegger . Challenging the same, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. Though severa...
Sethukarasi The Director General Police, Mylapore and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to incorporate the legal heirship of the petitioner's minor children Dhanalakshmi and Perumal in the disbursement of the death benefit and other benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband, namely, R.Periyasamy (HC 1548) on basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's minor children Dhanalakshmi and Perumal as legal heirs of the deceased employee Periyasamy (HC 1548) for the purpose of disbursement of his death and other benefits on basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner claims that she is the 2nd wife of the deceased employee Periyasamy, who had been employed as Grade-I Head Const...
Muthu Irulandi Vs. M. Karuppanan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order of return made by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai in A.Thi.Mu.6978 of 2012 endorsed in I.A.No.Not Known of 2015 in O.A.No.22 of 2012, dated 10.3.2016 and to allow this revision.) 1. This revision has been filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of return made by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai in A.Thi.Mu.6978 of 2012 endorsed in I.A.No.Not Known of 2015 in O.A.No.22 of 2012, dated 10.03.2016. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for filing an appeal and also requested two weeks time to file such appeal before the concerned authority. 3. Recording the above submission and the endor...
Veeramani Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Trichy District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 24.02.2014 made in S.C.No.223 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.223 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 392 r/w Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 24.02.2014, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.394 r/w 397 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.No fine. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as fo...
M. Rajeshwari Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for record pertaining to impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 in Na.Ka.(A10)/2175/2016 dated 24.06.2016 and the consequential Impugned order in A4/1545/2016 dated 10.08.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to issue "Genuineness Certificate" to the Respondent No.4 in respect of Petitioner's LA (Land Acquisition) Certificate issued by the Respondent No.6 dated 17.02.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to register the name of the petitioner in the special category of "Land Looser by Acquisition" by calculating seniority from the date of land acquisition proceeding i.e., 01.03.2007 and consider her appointment as per the G.O.Ms.No.188, Personal and Administrative Department dated 28.12.1976.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order da...
S. Gurusamy Vs. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C., r/w 27 of P.C.Act 1988 to set aside the order dated 12.09.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.4242 of 2016 in C.C.No.21 of 2012 passed by the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Special Public Prosecutor. 2. The Petitioner / Accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the Order dated 12.09.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.4242 of 2016 in C.C.No.21 of 2012 passed by the Learned Principal Special Judge, for CBI Cases (VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) at Chennai. 3. The Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases while passing the impugned order on 12.09.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.4242 of 2016 in C.C.No.21 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner / Accused) at Paragraph No.21 had observed the following:- 22. In my considered opinion, whether PW1 has got power to issue sanction and whether the sanction order is valid in accordance with law. In this ...
Logu @ Loganathan and Others Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police, Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: CRL.A[MD].Nos.328 of 2014, 191 and 230 of 2015: Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 10.09.2014 made in S.C.No.408 of 2011 on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. Prayer in CRL.A[MD].No.54 of 2015: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 10.09.2014, made in S.C.No.408 of 2011, on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and enhance the sentence awarded to the accused Nos.3 and 4 to life sentence. Prayer in CRL.A[MD].No.82 of 2015: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 10.09.2014, made in S.C.No.408 of 2011, on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal insofar as acquitting the respondents 2 and 3/accused Nos.5 an...
K.A. Manshoor Vs. N. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 23.1.2012 made in A.No.5475 of 2011 in C.S.No.682 of 2011.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In terms of the agreement dated 16.08.2010, of which specific performance is sought qua the immovable property, Clause 10 is as under:- 10. Similarly the VENDOR herein agree and undertake to handover the vacant possession of the Schedule property to the PURCHASER at the time of paying the balance sale consideration to the VENDOR. 2. In a suit for specific performance, where no possession is claimed, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and another, reported in 2002-1-L.W. 368 is as under:- 15. From the above discussion it follows that a suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable prop...
J. Thankadhas and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communications in O.Mu.No.07706/Aa1/2013 dated 01.12.2014 and the consequential communication in A.Thi.Moo.No.3799/A2/16 dated 11.08.2016 on the file of the respondent no.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the 5th respondent school with effect from the date of appointment on 02.05.2013 with all attendant benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the orders of the 4th respondent in O.Mu.No.07706/Aa1/2013 dated 01.12.2014 and the consequential communication in A.Thi.Moo.No.3799/A2/16 dated 11.08.2016 vide which, the 4th respondent has returned the proposal stating that clarifications are awaited from the Government. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »