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.A.A. Chef and Others Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Coimbato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayers in W.P.No.28173 of 2012: - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Form No.4, Notice (Asst.No.2001507/99-2000, (Ref No.854/2002/A3, and to quash the impugned proceedings, dated 13.09.2012, and further to direct the respondent to follow the procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. W.P.No.21494 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari call for the records of the first respondent in Auction Notice in N.K.218/2014 (A-2) dated 05.03.2014, initiated under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for auction sale of agricultural land, comprised in S.No.N.K.61/1, measuring 2.89 acre, S.No.62, measuring 5.70 acre and S.No.62/1B, measuring 4.72 acre totaling to 7.61 acre along with pump set with motor, being self acquired property of...
R. Mohan Vs. Duraisekaran and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.98 of 2013 dated 08.07.2014 by confirming the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai in O.S.No.224 of 2008 dated 30.07.2014.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.224 of 2008 is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows: 2.1. The appellant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.224 of 2008 for granting a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is a residential house wherein the appellant claims that he is in enjoyment. 2.2. It is the case of the appellant that the suit property originally belonged to his maternal grandfather, by name, late.Durairaj Servai. It is the further case of ...
A. Ravishankar Prasad (deceased) and Others Vs. Prasad Production Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 23.01.2013 in I.A.S.R No.33080 of 2012 in O.S.No.13825 of 2010.) 1. Challenging the order passed in an unnumbered application in I.A.S.R.No. 33080 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Originally, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.248/2004 before this Court for recovery of possession, for mesne profits and for recovery of Rs.26,957/- towards maintenance and telephone charges. The defendants filed their written statement and were contesting the suit. Subsequently, when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was increased, the suit in C.S.No.248/2004, pending on the file of this Court, was transferred to the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and numbered as O.S.No.13825/20...
T. Kanchanadevi Vs. Dr. P. Balachander and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the I Additional Districit Judge, Coimbatore dated 22.07.2011 in A.S.No.40 of 2010, reversing the fair and decreetal order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupur dated 31.03.2010 in I.A.No.1686 of 2009 in O.S.No.291 of 2009. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in No.E1/10975/2010 dated 22.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to measure the property in G.S.No.805 at Varapatty Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimabtore District by a different Surveyor.) Common Judgment 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.40 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, reversing the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.1686 of 2009...
M. Pradeepa and Another Vs. The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: W.P. (MD) No.10783 of 2015:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned memorandum No.3032/OTD-B4/2011, dated 16.06.2015, passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in the Hindu Religious Endowments Administration Department. W.P. (MD) No.10820 of 2015:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Service included in Ground VII-A services for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in the vacancy caused due to the relieving of one Mr.G.Kaniraj, based on the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, within the timel...
Shanmugasundaram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR No.190 of 2016 on the file of the Thottiyam Police Station, Trichy.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.190 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 3. The allegations in the complaint is that when the defacto complainant was standing on the left side of the road, the petitioner abused him in filthy language, attacked him knife and caused injury to him, which resulted in registration of the case in Crime No.190 of 2016. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner a...
S. Radhamani Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakona ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, Earned Leave Wages for 226 days, IRT share amount and 20% Arrears of Salary and Dearness Allowance payable to him along with monthly Pension with reasonable rate of interest as per the settlement dated 13.04.2015 U/S 12(3) of ID Act w.e.f.01.09.2013. 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judg...
Kamatchi Vs. The Inspector of Police, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide necessary police for a week continuously to put the superstructure in the petitioner's property, viz., 300 sq.ft. in R.S.No.1735/219, comprised in Door No.13/4, Gurusamy Nagar, 4th Street, Chennai-12, by procuring the materials and completing the superstructure work to make my family reside in the suit property.) 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to provide necessary police protection, enabling the petitioner to put up the superstructure in the property, said to be belonging to the petitioner, bearing Door No.13/4, 4th Street, Gurusamy Nagar, Chennai. 3. The petitioner had stated that she is the daughter-in-law of one late Chockalingam. The petitioner has been residing at Door No.13, 4th Street, Gurusamy Naga...
Kathirvel Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi, Si ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to Crime No.8 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.8 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 3. Alleging dowry harassment in the matrimonial home, a complaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant / 2nd respondent against her husband. On the basis of the complaint, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner/sole accused. 4. Wh...
Velmurugan Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.No.3489 of 2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2460 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016.) 1. Yesterday while dealing with the dismissal of a bail cancellation petition in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.608 of 2016, I have stated that the de facto complainant may not be magnanimous, but not the Court. The same is the position with regard to the present petition. 2. The revision petitioner is a Bus Driver in a Government Transport Corporation. On the occurrence day, he is alleged to have scolded the Depot Manager and he is alleged to have prevented the Manager from discharging his public duty. Thisayanvilai Police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2016, under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. Apprehending arrest, the Bus Driver approached the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.2460 of 2016 seekin...