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. Samikannu Vs. The State rep by, Puducherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and quash the same as against the petitioner/7th accused.) Common Order: 1. These petitions have been filed by one R.Samikannu to call for the records in C.C.Nos.14 of 2010, 81 of 2013, 79 of 2013, 18 of 2010, 16 of 2010, 15 of 2010, 67 of 2013, 68 of 2013, 147 of 2009, 83 of 2013, 84 of 2013, 7 of 2009 and 13 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and quash the same as against the petitioner/7th accused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. On the complaint lodged by one Soundirarajan, the respondent police registered a case and took up investigation. It was alleged by Soundirarajan that the officials of the Regional Transport Office, in collusion with some brokers, have fabricated R.C.books for s...
C. Shanmugaraj Vs. The Commissioner Udumalpet Municipality Udumalpet a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order passed in W.P.No.19784 of 2016 dated 13.06.2016.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties for some time and also the learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded 3rd respondent. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.06.2016 in W.P.No.19784 of 2016, wherein, the writ petitioner's prayer seeking to quash the tender publication dated 28.05.2016 issued by the first respondent- Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, was rejected. 3. The pleading before the learned Single Judge put forth by the Writ Petitioner is that he has taken on lease the Community Hall constructed by the 1st respondent in pursuant to the lease granted to him on 07.06.2007 for a period of three years and vide representation dated 12.04.2010, he requested the 1st respondent to extend the licence for a further period of 9 years from June 2010 for the reason that he has a...
Southern Agrifurane Industries Limited. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.A2.9052/02 and 11286 to 11288/04 (1992-93), (1993-94) (1994-95) and (1996-97) respectively dated 6.7.2004, while directing the first respondent not to impose purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as directed by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Acts Cell.I/Dis.105980/88 dated 9.11.1989 and in D.Dis.Acts.Cell.II/52900/2000 dated 27.12.2000 until withdrawn in Acts Cell.II/6914/2002 dated 28.1.2002.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is a Public limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and they are registered as a dealer on the file of the respond...
Nagaraj Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgment in S.C.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, dated 24.11.2012 against the appellant.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. Heard the submissions of Mr.R.Azhagumani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the submissions of Mr.P.Mohan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is a case of Uxoricide (killing of one's own wife) and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul on 24.11.2012 convicted and sentenced the Accused in S.C.No.84 of 2012 to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- and in the event of default to pay the fine to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Assailing the conviction and sentence imposed, Criminal Appeal (MD) No.233 of 2015 has been preferred before this Court. 3. The case of the pro...
V. Thirulokachander Vs. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Dept.of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26080 of 2013.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26080 of 2013 dated 28.04.2016. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.26080 of 2013 from which the present writ appeal has arisen, are as follows: (i) The prayer made in W.P.No.26080 of 2013 was to quash the amendments which have been made to the bye-laws of the third respondent co-operative society, as being inconsistent with the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, ( Act in short) and to set aside the registration granted by the second respondent to those amendments and for a further direction to reinstate the petitioner/appellant herein as secretary and chief executive of the third respondent-society. (ii) The appellant herein was appointed as a Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societi...
Karuppusamy Vs. A. Mallika
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Decree and order dated 04.06.2016 of the Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.2230 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.561 of 2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order made in I.A.No.2230 of 2014 in HMOP No.561 of 2012 dated 04.06.2016 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the parties are husband and wife respectively. Respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for a direction to the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance for food, clothing, shelter, medicine and educational expenses of her son Siddharth, and to herself. 3. Contention has been made by the respondent/wife that the marriage between them took place on 01.06.2001 and out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 03.07.2002. At the time of filing of the petition under Section 24 of the Act, son was ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.06.2016 in W.P.No.20152 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Dhananjeyam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent. 2. The present writ appeal is filed by the State Transport Corporation against the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by them. 3. The facts made available herein would reveal that the second respondent has suspended the permit of the vehicle belonging to the appellant Corporation for a period of 30 days under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'Act') with an option to compound the offence by paying penalty to the tune of Rs.9,000/-, for the alleged violation of plying the vehicle on an unauthorized route. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was returned by the ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brindha and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2009, dated 29.04.2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Insurance Company/second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 47 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti, aggrieved by the findings rendered by the Tribunal on negligence as well as quantum of compensation passed in award and decree dated 29.04.2014 in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2009, had filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The facts briefly narrated necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The husband of the first respondent was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-69-W-9081 during the night hours on 10.05.2008 and at about 10.15 p.m, he was returning from Ettayapuram after purchasing cell phone recharge...
M/s Cauvery Electronics Vs. The Joint Commissioner (SMC) Commercial Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in its proceedings in SMR No. 687 of 1998 quash the orders therein dated 28.05.2003.) 1. Heard Mrs.Radhika Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, Assisted by Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner who is a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 [TNGST Act], has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of passed by the first respondent, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III, exercising his power of suo motu revision under section 34 of the TNGST Act, against the order passed by the Appellate Assista...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Although publication was effected in respect of the service of Respondent by means of paper publication in Malai Sudar dated 19.08.2016, clearly informing that the notice was ordered to be returned by 26.08.2016 and that the Respondent/Accused was directed to be present at 10.30 A.M. either in person or through pleader, today when the matter is come up for hearing in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.A.SR.18525 of 2010, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent either in person or through Learned Counsel. 3. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that this Court on 13.02.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in Crl.A.SR.No.18525 of 2010 at paragraphs 2 and 3, inter-alia observed and passed the following order: 2. Though this Court by order dated 23.01.2014 has granted three weeks time to take fresh notice to the respondent, so far no steps has been taken. 3. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in keeping thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »