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.
T. Ravi Vs. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Kadaya ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
M. Sathyanarayanan, J. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Since this Court is not going to pass any adverse order against the fourth respondent, notice to her is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property admeasuring to an extent of 1058.75 Sq.ft and the pathway consisting in Natham Village Survey No.257 to 864/1 of South Kadayam, Ambasamuthram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. He would further state that he has put up construction in the said property. It is further submitted by him that there is a pathway in S.Nos.570/25 and 570/29, in which, the fourth respondent has put up tin-sheet and constructed a small hotel in that survey numbers. According to the petitioner, the said pathway is used as the public pathway by the residents of the locality concerned and on account of running of the hotel by the fourth respondent, the access is blocked by him. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third res...
K.A. Mary (Died) and Others Vs. K.V. Anthony and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the confirming judgment and decree in A.S.No.146 of 1998 dated 22.12.2003 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which was preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3516 of 1998 dated 30.07.1996 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The original plaintiff is the appellant. The second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Court below in a suit for declaration and title and for the consequential injunction and for a direction to hand over the sale deed of the property or in the alternative, directing the defendant to pay the same to the plaintiff. 2. The original plaintiff is the daughter of the original defendant, who is the father. The defendant was allotted a plot of land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in 1968 and he has been in possession of the same. Though the father was allotted the plot, he was financially not sound to...
H. Gouthamchand Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order, dated 12.02.2014 in I.T.A.No.1222/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Chennai.) Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Chennai on 12.02.2014, allowing the appeal preferred by the Revenue before it. 2. The substantial questions of law that have been raised for consideration in this appeal are as follows: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT is not perverse in law ? and (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT in the absence of tangible materials was right in confirming double addition made to the sum of Rs.15 lakhs over and above the income offered and taxable under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act ?" 3. For the assessment year 2008-2009, the ass...
M. Kamaraj Vs. M. Lalithkumar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.8887 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the Docket Order passed in unnumbered E.A.No.....of 2016 in E.A.No.738 of 2007 in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.1328 of 1994 dated 29.8.2016, on the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Prayer: C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.8888 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the Docket Order passed in unnumbered E.A.No.....of 2016 in E.A.No.739 of 2007 in E.P.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 1996 dated 29.8.2016, on the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.) Common Order: 1. These Revisions have been filed challenging the Docket orders made in E.A.No.....of 2016 in E.A.No.738 of 2007 in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.1328 of 1994 and E.A.No.....of 2016 in E.A.No.739 of 2007 in E.P.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 1996, dated 29.8.2016, on ...
The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases) at Krishnagiri, dated 31.3.2015 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.461 of 2013. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases) at Krishnagiri, dated 31.3.2015 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.411 of 2013.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Arising out of an accident, which occurred on 16.11.2011, about 4.30 p.m, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA-21 /M 2433, belonging to M.Sakthivelu/3rd Respondent in C.M.A.No.2112/2016 and 4th Respondent in C.M.A.No.2111/2016, and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bommasandra, Bangalore (appellant herein), driven in a rash and negligent manner, by his driver, dashed against a pedestrian, who was walking on the left side of ...
Ravishankar and Another Vs. State represented by Deputy Superintendent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri by Judgment dated 30.10.2009 in S.C.No.12 of 2007 and to acquit them.) 1. The Appellants have focused the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 30.10.2009 in S.C.No.12 of 2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri. 2. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.12 of 2007 on 30.10.2009, had, among other things, observed that 'on consideration of the pleas of the Appellants/A1 and A2 to the effect that they were not affluent and hence, prayed for awarding of lower punishment and further considering the facts of the case, after rejecting the pleas found the Appellants/ A1 and A2 guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and a...
K. Kalyanasundar Vs. The secretary to Government, The State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in respect of the proceedings of the first respondent in letter No.30900/TP1/2007-19 dated 02.11.2010 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.047/2011/A2 dated 25.03.2011 and to quash the same. Consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.206 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 02.11.1995 by making suitable amendment to the Government Order, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) 1. With the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.30900/TP1/2007-19, dt:02.11.2010 and the consequential order pass...
A.C. Engineering Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer(FAC)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2016, and direct the respondent to issue a refund voucher for the refund of Rs.39,459/-, Rs.24,534/- and Rs.3,46,719/- with interest to the petitioner under section 42(5) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, in pursuance to the Notice of Assessment and Refund Order in Form ''P'' in assessment No.33055602687/2010-11, 33055602687/2011-12, 33055602687/2012-13, dated 20.12.2013 within such time as may be directed by the Hon'ble Court.) Common Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2016, and to issue a refund voucher for the refund of Rs.39,459/-, Rs.24,534/- and Rs.3,46,719/- respectively, with interest to the petitioner under section 42(5) of the Tamilnadu Value Adde...
Ashokarajan Vs. Dr. Padmarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer in S.A.146 of 2011:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore made in A.S.No.18 of 2007 dated 30.01.2010 thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, made in O.S.No.246 of 2003 dated 31.08.2006. Prayer in S.A.147 of 2011:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore made in Cross Appeal No.18 of 2007 dated 30.01.2010 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, made in O.S.No.246 of 2003 dated 31.08.2006.) Common Judgment: 1. The appellant in both the appeals is the first defendant in a suit for specific performance directing the first defendant to execute a partition deed as per partition agreement dated 25.11.2000 and to declare the settlement deed dated 29.04.2003 executed in favour of ...
M. Ashrafunnisa and Another Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners in Survey Nos.46/1B and 46/2A1 at Four Roads, Salem District and consequently, to pay the arrears of rent from the year 2004 onwards along with interest at 18% per annum till date.) 1. The petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would aver as follows: 1.1. The grandfather of the petitioners, namely, late Khaderkhan, owned a land admeasuring to an extent of 9,463 sq. ft. comprising in S.Nos.46/1B and 46/2A1 at Four Roads, Salem Town. M/s.Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India [now known as 'Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited'] had entered into a registered lease agreement bearing Document No.3764 of 1957 with the grandfather of the petitioners for a period of ten years from 01.11.1956 to 31.10.1966 and further, it was not extended either...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »