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.
R. Johnson Vs. S. Yesudhas and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.37 of 2016 in O.S.No.373 of 2007, dated 27.7.2016, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.) 1. This revision has been directed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.37 of 2007, dated 27.07.2016, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.373 of 2007 before the Second Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, for the relief of declaration in respect of the ''A'' schedule of the suit property and for recovery of possession of ''B'' schedule of suit property. The extent of area of suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were stated in the plaint as 0.750 cents and 0.517 cents respectively. Therefore, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the suit, who had filed ...
Rakesh P. Sheth and Another Vs. The State, represented by the Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to direct the respondent to de-freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner, viz., SB/01/2655, SB/01/2806, SB/01/2740, CBCA 01/342, CBCA/01/349, CBCA/01/350, CBCA/01/353 and SB/01/2518, in exercise of the inherent powers under S. 482, Cr.P.C.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent police to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioner, viz., SB/01/2655, SB/01/2806, SB/01/2740, CBCA 01/342, CBCA/01/349, CBCA/01/350, CBCA/01/353 and SB/01/2518, in exercise of the inherent powers under S. 482, Cr.P.C. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name. 3. On the complaint lodged by one Sree Vidhya (intervener), the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.180/2016 on 13.07.2016 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC against one Rakesh Sheth, his wife Roshini P. Sheth and Premsai Chundur. The allegation in the FIR against them is as under: 4. S...
R. Pandian Vs. The Postmaster General, Union of India, Chennai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the order made in O.A.No.765 of 2012, dated 16.12.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-instate the petitioner into service, with all attendant benefits.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order, dated 16.12.2014, made in O.A.No.765 of 2012, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, confirming, (i) Charge Memo No.ADA/02/2010-11, dated 30.11.2010, issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (OD) and Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram 631 501, the 3rd respondent herein; (ii) Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, dated 14.02.2011, removing the petitioner from service, (iii) Order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram 631 501, the 2n...
Palanisamy and Others Vs. Nachammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 in A.S.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.215 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Karur. The suit is filed for partition of plaintiff's 1/4 share in the 'A' Schedule properties and 1/2 share in the 'B' Schedule properties. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit 'A' Schedule properties belong to the plaintiff's father and it was his ancestral properties. All the properties described in 'A' Schedule are dry lands and had not yielded any income. The suit 'B' Schedule properties, according to the plaintiff's, are the self-acquired properties of her father Late Komara Gounder. The pro...
S. Mathrubootham and Another Vs. S. Gunasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC read with Order 41 and 41-A of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 04-01-2016 made in O.S.No.449 of 2008 by the Additional District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04-01-2016 passed in O.S.No.449 of 2008 by the Additional District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpet. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.449 of 2008 on the file of Trial Court praying to pass the decree of specific performance, in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 14-06-2007 wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants. 3. The epitome of the plaint is that the suit property is originally belong to the persons namely, Sulochana Gopalan, Sudha, Lakshmi, Sridharan and through their Power Agent by name Devadoss have sold the same in favour of one Mrs. D. Uma under the sale deed dated 02-03-1990. The first defendant has pu...
S. Amirthaganesan Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings vide R.No.40939/H1/2015, dated 30.05.2016, confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings Memo No.28047/A4/2015, dated 28.07.2015, to quash the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to renew the licence granted to Sri Gajendran Driving School, No.1/103, Mudaliyar Street, Thiruvarur.) 1. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.S.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was running a driving school, in the name and style of Sri Gajendran Driving School, from 27.01.1997 and stated to impart training to persons, to obtain a driving licence. 3. The...
A. Gunasekaran Vs. Palaniappan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to direct the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul to decide the I.A.No.44 of 2015 in A.S.No.24 of 2015, within the time frame stipulated by this Court.) 1. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the matter becomes infructuous and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
Saroja Ammal and Others Vs. Sundaravadhanam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of CPC r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 4.3.2016, in O.S.No.104 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Villupuram.) 1. The judgment and decree dated 4.3.2016 passed in Original Suit No.104 of 2013, by the Principal District Court, Villupuram are being challenged in the present appeal suit. 2. The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, have instituted Original Suit No.104 of 2013, on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a preliminary decree of partition, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. 3. In the plaint, it is averred that the suit properties are the absolute properties of one Palanimalai Chettiar, who is none other than the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the remaining plaintiffs and defendants and he passed away, leaving behind him the present plaintiffs and defendants. Since the defendants are not amenable for partition, the present suit has been instit...
Pandiyammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to produce the persons or bodies of the petitioner's son Gopal, son of Mariyappan, aged about 33 years old, petitioner's daughter-in-law Patha Mariyal, wife of Gopal, aged about 23 years old, petitioner's brother Rajan, son of Velliyan, aged about 45 years old, petitioner's relatives namely Vasanthi, Wife of Rajan, aged abut 40 years old, Valli, wife of Velu, aged about 25 years old, Velu, son of Kesavan, aged about 35 years old, Maruthaye, daughter of Rajan, aged about 22 years old, Selvaraj, son of Muniyandi, aged about 30 years old and minor children, namely Sekar, son of Gopal, aged about 12 years old, Deva, son of Velu, aged about 10 years old, Vallarasu, son of Selvaraj, aged about 6 years old, Vinoth, son of Selvaraj, aged about 3 years old, Vicki, son of Selvarai, aged about 1-1/2 years old before this Court and set t...
M/s. Rasathe Garments Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN: 33945720974/2012-13; TIN: 33945720974/2013-14 and TIN: 33945720974/2014-15 quash the pre-assessment notice dated 24.08.2016, respectively, issued therein.) 1. The impugned notices, dated 24.08.2016, in which, the tax and penalty to be paid, has been fixed and thereafter, objections called for, is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon earlier judgment of this Court in MADRAS GRANITES (P) LTD.,v.COMML.TAXOFFICER (Mad.) reported in 2006 STC 642 (Vol.146), which was thereafter, followed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s.SNEH COMMUNICATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGER JITENDRA JAIN v.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE...