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.
B. Sakunthala Vs. Vasantha
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in D.V.O.P.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The petitioner, a widow, who has purchased a house property from her father from out of the compensation awarded for the death of her husband and her only son, now facing the complaint laid against her under the Domestic Violence Act, i.e. D.V.O.P.10 of 2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, seeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that the complaint itself is not maintainable neither on facts nor on the question of law. Brief Facts: 2. The house property located at Door No.210, Therkoor 7th Lane, Mettupatti, Dindigul Town, Dindigul Distrct was purchased by the petitioner's father Muthusamy for a sum of Rs.12,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 03.02.1986. It is the exclusive and separate property of petitioner's father. The father execu...
C. Kishin Chand Vs. City Bank N.A. A Banking company, Having Office an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 78,00,000/- from the defendants, towards damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff made by the defendants. 2. Brief facts as epitomised in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a businessman, having his textile business, including sales of sarees and ready-made garments in the name and style 'M/s.Sangam, No. 34/25, Rattan Bazaar,Chennai-600001' from the year 1968 onwards. The plaintiff had put up high reputation in business market and social circles and earned good position in the society. The plaintiff was having member establishment agreement dated 22.7.1992 with the first defendant bank. In the course of business, on 30.01.1998, a customer made purchase goods for Rs. 18,300/- in the plaintiff's shop and tendered the bill amount by way of credit card. The plaintiff sought permission and authorisation from the first defendant bank in respect of the said transaction and consequently, the...
M/s. Ravi Cotton Company Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records of the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST Asst No.2400085/2002-2003, and to quash the impugned order, dated 28.02.2005, and further, to direct the respondent to grant copies of the records, requested by the petitioner, in their letter, dated 01.02.2005, and permit the petitioner to cross examine the persons from whom statements have been obtained by the respondent, and relied on for the purpose of assessment and thereafter, to complete the assessment in accordance with law in view of the direction of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.959 of 2005 of W.P.No.38521 of 2004, by an order, dated 07.01.2005.) 1. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the responden...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. S. Srimathy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: This civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.10.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2008 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu.) 1. What is the use of declaration of beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many judgments, especially in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, Lingamma and another vs. United Insurance Company Limited reported in 2009 ACJ 2020, Sohanlal Passi vs. reported in AIR 1996 SCC 2627. 2. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have been enacted to render social welfare and to console, comfort and compensate the victims of the road accidents. It is also intended for speedy disposal of those matters. That is the reason why, the Parliament thought it fit to constitute a Special Tribunal and prescribe summary procedure to dispose of the claims,...
New Kurinji Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. The Chief Manager, Stressed Assets Re ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.113 of 2010.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. T.Lajpathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that the matter has already been settled and also in the light of the passage of time, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter. 2. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. In the light of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Jerome Jayakumar Vs. The Zonal Manager, The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned Public Auction Notice for sale of Immovable Properties issued by him in his Auction Notice No.TVPMZ/SARFAESI/SALE/017/2016-17 dated 4th August 2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.) M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. This Writ Petition is dismissed withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
G. Kanagaraj Vs. The Executive Magistrate and Thasildhar Thottium Talu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A1-5598-2013, dated 20.09.2013 and quash the same.) 1. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. On 08.10.2013, while entertaining the writ petition, this Court has granted an order of interim stay and it has been extended periodically. 3. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land and building situated in Old Natham Survey No.32, purchased by him under a Sale Deed, dated 14.09.2005 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. According to him, there is east-west lane lies on the western side of the said property and the same is also in his possession. Since the building situated in the said property was in a dilapidated condition, he started construction work in a portion of the said property adjoining the no...
M.S. Sivaraman Vs. State rep. by, The Commissioner of Police, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the second respondent to produce the person or body of the petitioner's wife, detenu, namely Shanmugapriya (aged 21 years) before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that his wife Mrs.Shanmugapriya was abducted by the respondents 3 to 5 on 05.09.2016 and he made a complaint to the police in connection with the same on 05.09.2016 itself, but, so far, no action has been taken. This Habeas Corpus Petition was filed on 06.09.2016. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner Mr.M.S.Sivaraman has stated that the marriage between him and the detenu-Shanmugapriya was performed on 18.06.2016 and after the marriage, they were living together as husband and wife for about three months. He has further stated that on 05.09.2016 the respondents 3 to 5 a...
The Management rep.by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 26.04.2013 made in W.P.(MD) No.12105 of 2009.) 1. The Management, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.12105 of 2009, in and by which the Award dated 18.09.2008 in I.D.No.126 of 1995 passed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent came to be confirmed, has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the additional typed set of papers, dated 15.04.2015, and submitted that as per the enquiry report the first respondent is also mulcted with the liability and responsibility for the reason that along with the Storekeepers, namely, Balaraman and Vaithialingam, he was in-charge of the office between 09.01.1988 and 04.06.1988. The Labour Court, while adjudicating the industrial dispute, has not taken into consideration the above fact and passed a cryptic order. Hence, the learned coun...
P. Mayilrajaperumal Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS forbearing the respondents from anyway operating the buses of the 3rd respondent Corporation by engaging the Driver-cum-Conductor or Driver beyond the period of 8 hours and consequently directing the respondents to engage two drivers for operating the buses of the third respondent Corporation.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from anyway operating the buses of the 3rd respondent Corporation by engaging the Driver-cum-Conductor or Driver beyond the period of 8 hours and consequently directing the respondents to engage two drivers for operating the buses of the third respondent Corporation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he is interested in the social service and hen...