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.
M/s.Jaydheep Techno Enterprises Private Limited, rep. By its Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to constitute an arbitral tribunal consisting of a sole Arbitrator as agreed by the parties under the Arbitration Agreement dated 01.10.2009 and 20.02.2010 respectively.) 1. The petitioner has filed the petitions under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in respect of disputes which have arisen inter se the parties, in respect of agreements dated 01.10.2009 and 20.02.2010 respectively. The petitioner was awarded the contracts by the respondent i.e., 1) for providing and enabling, supply erection of Fire Protection and Utility system at the engineering college of the respondent for a contract value of Rs.6,38,21,930/- and 2) for plumbing and sanitary work for a contract value of Rs.1,23,44,127/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the invoices were raised, but the full payment has not been made, consequent to which the arbit...
S. Muthu Vs. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining in ref.No.30979/2016/L 5/11.08.2016 signed on 16.08.2016 and affixed on 18.08.2016 in the notice board of Sri Muthukumarasamy Devasthanam @ Kandha Kottam 6 and the Corrigendum in ref.No.30979/2016/L 5/23.08.2016 affixed in the notice board of Sri Muthukumarasmy Devasthanam @ Kandha Kottam on 23.08.2016 both passed by the 2nd respondents and quash the same thereby administer the 3rd respondent temple as per the Scheme Degree passed in C.S.No.117 of 1907 dated 12.01.1990 and 25.10.1990.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 16.08.2016 and the corrigendum, dated 23.08.2016, and administer the third respondent temple, as per the Scheme Degrees passed in C.S.No.117 of 1907, dated 12.01.1990 and 25.10.1990. 3. The petitioner seeks to set-aside th...
M/s. Bombay Andhra Transport Co., Chennai Vs. S.M. Hameed Abdul Quadir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order and decreetal order in R.C.A No.312 of 2011 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madras dated 15.09.2014, confirming the judgment and decree in R.C.O.P.No.1403 of 2006 on the file of Rent Controller cum XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras dated 16.03.2011.) 1. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in R.C.A.No.312 of 2011 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P No.1403 of 2006 on the file of Rent Controller/XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P No.1403 of 2006 for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. According to the respondent/landlord, he is the absolut...
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.C. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 16.11.2015 in S.T.C.No.381 of 2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tract Court No.1, Erode, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant and acquitting the accused. Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 08.06.2015 made in C.M.P.No.4330 of 2013 in S.T.C.No.381 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tract Court No.I, Erode. Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 08.06.2015 made in C.M.P.No.4870 of 2013 in S.T.C.No.381 of 2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode and to set aside the same.) Common Order 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.381 of 2016 is the complainant and the respondent in the said Appeal is the accused in S.T.C.No.381 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judici...
Subbiah Vs. Periyanayagi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to fair and decreetal order dated 12.02.2016 made in I.A.No.778 of 2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of District Munsic, Devakottai and set aside the same.) 1. The civil revision petition arises against the order dated 12.02.2016 made in I.A.No.778 of 2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014, praying for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The petitioner herein/plaintiff has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.778 of 2015 before the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property along with the surveyor and to submit a report and plan before the trial Court. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the r...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioners / Appellants / A.3 and A.4 (Rank of accused realigned) have filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 12.09.2016 in S.C.No.210 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Salem. 3. It transpires that the Petitioners / Appellants / A.3 and A.4 were found guilty in respect of an offence under Section 313 r/w Section 511 of IPC and was awarded with a punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment and also they were directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment, by the Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Salem in S.C.No.210 of 2013 dated 12.09.2016. In respect of Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition (Harassment of Women) Act 1998, the Petitioners / Appellants / A.3 and A.4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo thre...
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Defence Production an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, vide its Order, dated 31.03.2010 made in O.A.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the 7th respondent and quash the same.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), dated 31.03.2010 in O.A.No.11 of 2009 and quash the same. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : (i) The respondents 1 to 6 in this writ petition are applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The applicants were originally employed as Group 'D' Labourers on various dates during 1961 and 1962 in third petitioner's factory, nam...
S. Annanda Padmavathi Vs. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 in O.A.No.735 of 2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and to quash and regularize the petitioner's service in the post of Inspector of Central Excise, with effect from 19.12.2002 with all other attending benefits.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The writ petitioner/applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, was promoted to the Grade of Inspector of Central Excise, vide proceedings, dated 21.05.2008, subject to her passing the physical test in the light of the new physical parameters for Physically Handicapped Officers are evolved in consultation with NIOH, Kolkatta and in terms of the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 17.12.2008. 2. The petitioner, being one leg affected Physically Handicapped category, ...
Dhanapal Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in S.C.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam.) The appellant/A1 stood for trial along with his wife (A2); A2 was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 against the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in S.C.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, in and by which, he was convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellant/A1 is that the deceased Shanthi was the wife of P.W.3, who is the brother of the appellant/A1. P.W.1/de-facto complainant and P.W.2 are the mother and father of the deceased Shanthi. The deceased was given ...
Akilan @ Akilanathan and Another Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 12.08.2009 in S.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.08.2009 in S.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam, in and by which, the appellants/A6 and A7 stood for trial along with the 12 other accused persons; A1 to A5 and A8 to A14 were acquitted of the charges by the trial Court and the appellants herein (A6 and A7) alone were convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder : Sl.No.Rank of the accusedConviction under SectionSentence of imprisonmentFine1A6Section 148 IPCsix months imprisonment-2A6Section 341 IPCone month imprisonment-3A6Section 307 IPCseven years imprisonmentRs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months imprisonment4A7Section 148 IPCsix months imprisonment-5A7Section 341 IPCone mont...