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.
Pushpam Vs. The Home Secretary, Home Department, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to withdraw the case in Crime No.629 of 2016 from the sixth respondent and entrust the same to the third respondent, an independent agency, preferably, CBI, to conduct re-investigation in respect of Crime No.629 of 2016 on the file of the sixth respondent herein.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to withdraw the case in Crime No.629 of 2016 from the file of the sixth respondent and entrust the same to the third respondent, an independent agency, preferably, Central Bureau of Investigation, to conduct re-investigation in respect of Crime No.629 of 2016 on the file of the sixth respondent herein. 2. On 24.06.2016, around 6.40 a.m., a gory incident took place in Platform No.2 of Nungambakkam Railway Station in which one Swathi, a girl aged around 24 years, who was waiting to board a local EMU to go to office, was fatally attacked, in connection with which, on the complain...
V. Sivasubramanian and Others Vs. M.P. Nirmala and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 respectively.) Common Order 1. These contempt petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 respectively, has not been complied with by the respondents. 2. The petitioners were employees of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, which is a creature of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (Central Act 58 of 1962). The petitioners made a request to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation to constitute a Pension Scheme for them and in deference to their request, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation sent a proposal dated 27.02.2001 to the Government for introducing Pension Scheme to the emplo...
Balamurugan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in M.C.No.90/Pro/DC.LandO/Tin-C/2016 and the order, dated 14.06.2016 on the file of the Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City and revise the same.) 1. Petitioner, a detenue, who has been confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the second respondent/Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Tirunelveli City, directed this revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the said order of detention. 2. Petitioner belongs to Palayamkkottai in Tirunelveli District. On 05.03.2016, in Crime No.288 of 2016, under Section 110 (e) and (f) Cr.P.C, an F.I.R. has been registered as against him by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palayamkkottai Police Station, on the ground that he exhibited disorderly and unruly behaviour. 3. On 08.03.2016, the 2nd respondent issued him show ...
P. Thangamuthu and Another Vs. S.D. Sengottuvel and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order in I.A.No.817 of 2011 passed in O.S.No.217 of 2008, on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit in O.S.No.217 of 2008 was decreed as settled out of Court before the trial Court. 2. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is closed as settled out of Court. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs....
G. Rameshkannan and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 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.4 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. Alleging dowry harassment in the matrimonial home, a complaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant / 2nd respondent against her husband and in-laws. On the basis of the complaint, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitio...
P. Rajkumar and Another Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Review Application is filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 14.07.2015, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2448 of 2012 on the file of this Court.) 1. The respondents in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2448 of 2012 have come up with this Review Application to review the order dated 14 July, 2015, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2448 of 2012, on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court, after arriving at a finding that the learned Trial Judge was correct in dismissing the application to amend the application in I.A.No.673 of 2010, granted liberty to the respondent to file a comprehensive application for impleading the first defendant in I.A.No.673 of 2010. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court has dismissed the application in I.A.No.673 of 2010 on various grounds including the ground of non-joinder. The said order remained untouched in C.R.P.(MD)SR.N...
Gowri Srikanth, Manager, Hyundai Motor India Limited, Chennai Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., to modify the order dated 20.08.2016 made in Crl. MP. No.3884/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Alandur in condition No.1 by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate at Alandur as The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.80,00,000/- instead of the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.80,00,000/- along with one surety for the like sum .) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to modify condition No.1 of the order dated 20.08.2016 made in Crl. MP. No.3884/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Alandur, as The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.80,00,000/- instead of the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.80,00,000/- along with one surety for a like sum . 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. On a complaint lodged by one Manoharan, Security Guard of Hyundai Motor India Limi...
P. Balachandran Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in Both petitions: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of Impugned Seniority List which issued by the fourth respondent dated 01.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to prepare the single list as per the instruction from the first respondent.) 1. The petitioners/P.Balachandran and P.Selvam were appointed as Shop Supervisors in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited through Employment Exchange in the year 2003, vide order dated 24.11.2003. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that while they were working from the year 2003 to 2004, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited has selected candidates for Bar Supervisor through District Employment Office as per the seniority list made by the District Collector. For which, separate work order has been issued to the selected candidates. In the ...
M/s. Dinamalar, Tirunelveli Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Income Tax Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench made in I.T.A.No.2829/Mds/2015, dated 14.01.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Tax Case Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2016 made in I.T.A.No.2829/Mds/2015, for the assessment year 2011-2012, in the matter of M/s.Dinamalar, Tirunelveli, by which, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant-assessee is a firm engaged in the business of publication of Daily Newspaper and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, on 21.03.2013, admitting a total income of Rs.40,69,56,311/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli, issued a notice, under ...
K. Natarajan Vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp ...
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 payment of the 229 days of Earned Leave to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest within the time-frame that may be stipulated by this Court.) 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 judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunde...