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. Rama Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Managing Director, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refund the sum of Rs.7,10,000/- paid by the petitioner towards the cost of the Flat No.A-20 at 208, HIG Scheme, Ashok Pillar Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83 with interest @ 24% p.a.) 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refund the sum of Rs.7,10,000/- paid by the petitioner, towards the cost of the Higher Income Group (hereinafter referred to as 'HIG') Flat No.A-20, at Ashok Pillar Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, together with interest @ 24% p.a. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. A flat had been allotted in favour of the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe category, on 26.2.1998, by the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The total cost of the flat was Rs.11,82,500/-. 4. Based on the agreement entered ...
Balamurugan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No.50 of 2012 dated 28.04.2015 and acquit the appellant from the charges.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.50 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 397 IPC against this appellant/accused. 2. The Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 28.04.2015 convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to under go Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and convicted for offence under Section 379 IPC for one year Rigorous Imprisonment and the appellant/accused shall undergone the above sentences concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3....
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Thangalakshmi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.10.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and with the consent of both sides, this civil miscellaneous appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Sivakasi, aggrieved by the Award and Decree, dated 30.10.2010, has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal, challenging the liability to indemnify the insured, namely, Mani / third respondent herein. 3. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are wife, daughter and mother of the deceased John Albert respectively. 4. According to the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was a Diploma-holder of Engin...
Kavitha Vs. R. Sogulan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.783 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy to Sub Court, Kulithalai in Karur District.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.783 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy to the Sub Court, Kulithalai in Karur District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner resides at Door No.26, at Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. The petitioner has to travel more than 70 kms to attend every hearing at the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy, which causes great difficulty to her. Apart from that, she has a female child, aged about 13 years, to take care of her. Hence, he prayed for an appropriate order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that taking into convenience of the petitioner only, the H.M.O.P. was filed in the native of Trichy District. Howev...
Sri Ramakrishna Dyeing Works Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN- 33131940020/2008-09 ; TIN-33131940020/2009-10 ; TIN- 33131940020/2010-11 ; TIN-33131940020/2011-12 ; TIN- 33131940020/2012-13 ; TIN-33131940020/2013-14 and TIN- 33131940020/2014-15 dated 06.07.2015, quash the same and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the reply dated 17.07.2015 and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. ) Common Order: 1. Heard Mr.T.Bashyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. In all these writ petition the petitioner challenges the orders of Assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 [TNVAT Act] for the Assess...
N. Manigandan and Another Vs. The Director, The Directorate of Tamilna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from erecting the High Tension Electricity Tower in the land belongs to the petitioners comprised in Survey No.66/1, 67/1, measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. and Survey No.65/2D2A and Patta No.5584 measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. respectively situate in Vellanoor Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.) 1. Since the respondent Electricity Board is required to get permission to enter upon the property of an individual for erecting High Tension Wires, towers or to draw cables, as per Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the District Collector is a necessary party. Therefore, The District Collector Thiruvallur District is suo-motu impleaded as the 4th respondent in these writ petitions. 2. Similarly, the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle-I, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Guindy, Chennai is the proper res...
Thiagarajan Kumararaja Vs. M/s. Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
1. Suit has been filed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2, their agents, officers, servants and representatives, franchisees and all others in the capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf from translating the script "Aaranya Kaandam" in to any language, making any new cinematograph film that is based on the script "Aaranya Kaandam", incorporating any translated version of the script "Aaranya Kaandam" as part of any new or existing cinematograph film or doing any other act inconsistent with the rights conferred on the plaintiff under section 14(a) of the Copyright Act 1957; and for the costs in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff is a script writer. The Plaintiff approached the defendants for producing a movie. Initially, the defendants evinced interest in the project. There was an understanding between the parties that in the event of the plaintiff unable to find any other producer till...
Ramesh Vs. The Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent herein under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. dated 11.08.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Challenging the summons issued by the Executive Magistrate u/s 107 r/w 111 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 2.1 V.Ganesan, the Inspector of Police, No.15 Velampalayam Police Station, Tiruppur, registered a case in Cr.No.441 of 2016 on 21.07.2016 u/s 107 Cr.P.C. and placed the same before the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, for initiating action u/s 107 r/w 111 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein, pursuant to which the Executive Magistrate issued the impugned summons as aforestated. 2.2 It is averred by the Executive Magistrate that, on 15.07.2016, a dispute arose in Mahalakshmi Nagar which falls within his territorial jurisdiction, between A party and B party with regard to condu...
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 02.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.145 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Karaikal.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.145 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Karaikal, by which, the Tribunal, after fixing negligence on the driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 3269, owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, awarded compensation of Rs.14,50,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 26.08.2012, about 2.30 Hours, when Mr.Souce Joseph Antoine Jean Anatole, was on his way to Airport, along with his family, in Hyundai I-10 Car, bearing Registration No.TN 07 BD 3210, driven by its dri...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. 2. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and also, was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of the said fine amount, he was further directed to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.106 of 2015 dated 22.02.2016. 3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused submits that the Petitioner/Accused was detained in Central Prison, Puzhal and could not immediately mobilise funds to prefer the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the judgment dated 22.02.2016 in S.C.No.106 of 2015 and hence, there had occasioned a delay of 136 days which i...