Chennai Court September 2016 Judgments
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer in C.M.A.(MD) No.295 of 2004: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.607 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.) Common Order: These civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the insurance company against the common award passed by the Tribunal dated 07.062004 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.607, 608, 666, 699, 700 and 889 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant, who is the insurance company in all the appeals, has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. According to the claimants/respondent No.1 in each appeal, they have filed separate M.C.O.Ps., under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for compensation against the appellant insurance company and the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle. It is stated t...
Tag this Judgment!Susi Ganesan and Others Vs. V. Elango
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.3239 of 2009 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.3239 of 2009 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and quash the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and the respondent are referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 3. The complainant is an Advocate practising in the High Court and is said to be a Tamil lyricist. It is his case that the accused engaged the services of the complainant to pen a song for their Tamil film Kandasamy , after explaining to him the situation. Even according to the complainant, he prepared a part of the lyrics, namely the pallavi portion for the song and read out the lines to the first accused on 10.07.2007 over phone. It is his further case that...
Tag this Judgment!Eugeen Jose Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Colachal Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethimandram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in S.C.No.114 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.114/2012 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Sessions Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 364, 211, 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 31.03.2015, the trial Court convicted him only under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him from the other charges. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Poongodi. She was already married to o...
Tag this Judgment!J. James Clement Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Pudukottai and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the petitioner's driving licence to the petitioner forthwith.) 1. This Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to return the petitioner's driving licence to the petitioner forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., at Pudukottai Region on 01.08.2015 on permanent basis. Now he is working at Alangudi Branch. 4. A case in Crime No.142 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioner on 09.09.2016 under Section 304(A) IPC on the file of Keeramangalam Police Station, on the allegation that due to negligent driving, he caused...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Danieal and Samuel Logistics Private Limited rep by its Managing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in File C.No.V/ST/15/53/2012-Adjn.No.11/Commr/ST/2016, dated 14.07.2016 and quash the same.) Challenging the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the demand amount of Rs.1,21,42,125/- (service tax Rs.1,17,88,470/-, Primary Education Cess Rs.2,35,770 and Secondary and Higher Education Cess Rs.1,17,885/-) under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non assessing their correct service tax liability in the statutory returns and imposing a penalty of Rs.1,21,42,125/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Admittedly, against the order passed by the first respondent, there is an appeal remedy available before the CESTAT. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gupta and Co. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the third respondent, in assessment notice, dated 05.12.2011, but signed on 10.04.2015, in Ref No.5978/12/A1, assessment notice, dated 05.12.2011, but signed on 10.04.2015, in Ref. No.5978/12/a1, order dated 03.08.2015, in Na.Ka.No.5978/2012/a1, order dated 29.01.2016, in Na.Ka.No.5978/2012/a1, and order, dated 10.02.2016, in Na.Ka.No.5978/2012/a1, and to quash the same, and consequently, to forbear the respondents form collecting vacant land tax from the petitioner, except by applying the provisions of the amended Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and rules framed thereunder.) Common Order: 1. As the prayer sought for in all these Writ Petitions are identical, and the challenge is to identical orders passed by the respondent-Municipality, demanding vacant land tax from the petitioners, these Writ Petitions were heard together, a...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Muthukaruppan Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.07.2016 made in W.P.No.32675 of 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner, who has successfully completed one year today by audaciously not vacating the leased out premises and not handing over vacant possession of the same to the respondent/Corporation, has come up with this appeal, now challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.32675 of 2015, etc batch of cases. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 3. According to the appellant, he is one of the occupants in the premises at Door No.34, Pazhani Andavar Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026 as a lessee for more than 20 years and has been paying rents together with property taxes from the year 1992 till date. The appellant along with others have ...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
1. This Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1257 days in filing the above appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 3. The Petitioner has stated in para 4 of the affidavit that he had received notice in E.P.No.1 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007 and the same was received on 4.2.2016 and thereafter only came to know about the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007. Since the Petitioner has not given his temporary address at Kerala, the learned counsel for the Petitioner could not contact his client and therefore he was not attending the Court. Thereafter, the learned counsel could not appear before the Court below due to the Petitioner's absence and failure to contact him, which resulted in passing ex-parte award in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2007. Thereafter he received the copy of the judgement on 19.3.2016 and went to Madurai to contact his counsel for filing appeal, on 23.3.2016. After getting instructions and mobilizing funds, the Petitioner has filed the presen...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by, The Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.1831 of 2007, dated 27.09.2011.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The respondent/writ petitioner made a challenge to the constitutional authority of Explanation V under Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, introduced by the Amendment Act 23 of 2002, to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the State and the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.09.2011, had upheld the said plea and held that the said Explanation is ultra vires the Constitution of India, being beyond the competence of the State Legislature. 2. The appellants/Revenue aggrieved by the said order, had filed this writ appeal. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows: 3.1. The respondent/writ petitioner is in the field of manufacturing, laying, joining, testing and commissioning of PSC pipes, for water supply scheme...
Tag this Judgment!Suriyakala Vs. The Authorised Officer State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the seventh respondent Tribunal to consider the objection raised by the petitioners in I.A.No.179/2016 in S.A.No.25/2016 on the file of the seventh respondent that the property brought for sale by the first respondent bank, is an agricultural property and therefore exempted from purview of SARFAESI Act, 2002, in view of clause (i) of Section 31 of the Act and pass an appropriate speaking order and directing the first respondent bank not to proceed with the auction sale of the property, mentioned in the application/appeal bearing S.A.No.25/2016 and I.A.No.179/2016 on the file of the seventh respondent, till the said objection is adjudicated upon by either the seventh respondent or the eighth respondent Tribunals or any other writ, order, or direction or relief, with cost.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Material on record discloses that M/s.Jai Maruthi Energies Pvt. Ltd., represented by its...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »