Chennai Court January 2017 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.
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
1. It appears that the Petitioner had paid the cost of Rs.1,500/-, admittedly, belatedly on 09.01.2017. On behalf of the Petitioner, the reason assigned for the belated payment is because of the fact that the Petitioner's wife is the only person to save her family and she is working as a servant maid in a house and therefore, the Petitioner could not pay the money in time. 2. On being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, this Court, by taking a lenient, liberal and pragmatic view, allows this Petition. 3. In fine, the Crl.M.P.No.607 of 2016 is allowed....
P.H.C.M. Gandhi, President Rica Employees Union (AITUC) Vellore Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Rule Part I (iii)-3 of the APCA Service Rules, 1997 as null and void and unconstitutional as far as the existing retirement age of 58 years concerned and direct the first respondent to implement G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM-IV) Finance Department dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the members of petitioner union thereby fixing the retirement age as 60 years on superannuation with retrospective effect invoking the provisions of Rule Part II(i)-28 and Rule Part II (ix)-9 of APCA Service Rules, 1997 duly reinstating the members of the petitioner union those who were relieved from service at the age of 58 years into service and permit them to draw back wages, continuity of service with all other attended benefits thereon within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. S. Manikumar, J. 1. Claiming himself to be the President of RICA ...
M/s. Tungabadra Minerals Private Limited Vs. The Chennai Port Trust Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs: (a) for a declaration that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants pursuant to the issuance of the iron ore stacking area transit license No. MEE/V1/207/2010/Dy.CME (OH) vide allotment order No. 5/2010 dated 31.01.2010 and allotment order No. 15/2010 dated 05.02.2010 became void as on 28.07.2010; (b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner recovering any amounts from the plaintiff under the Allotment orders for alleged shortfall in the minimum guaranteed throughput during the allotment period from 01.02.2010 to 31.12.2010; (c) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the bank guarantees bearing No. 8000 IPEBG090017 dated 17.03.2009 of the Bank of India and bank guarantee No. 0482 IGF IN 000410 dated 24.02.2010 of the Bank of Baroda issued in favour of the first defendant; (d) for a directio...
M.s. Jaffar Sait, Formerly Additional Director General of Police Intel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
Order (Common) K.K. Sasidharan and V. Parthiban, JJ. Introductory 1. This is the case of a senior Police Officer of Indian Police Service in the rank of Additional Director General of Police, in charge of Intelligence under the previous Government, who was placed under suspension, immediately on assumption of office by the new government in 2011 and the victim of prolonged suspension for the last 5 years and 5 months, pending disposal of criminal cases (initiated on allegation of helping his subordinates to acquire housing plots under discretionary quota by creating records and thereby causing loss to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, besides taking allotment under the discretionary quota in the name of his wife and entering into a joint venture with a builder) without there being an allegation of tampering with evidence or influencing the process of enquiry or investigation and in spite of the remote chance of commencing the criminal proceedings in the near future, on account of the order...
V. Imayavarman Vs. The Pondicherry State Co-op. Bank Limitedm Puducher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records in pursuant to two possession notices both dated 19.12.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner's father and the consequential letter vide PSCB.HO/883/2016-17/SARFAESI Act dated 14.09.2016 issued by the third respondent to the petitioner and quash all of them.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the possession notice, dated 19.12.2014, issued by the Authorised Officer, The Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Limited, Puducherry and also the consequential letter in PSCB.HO/883/2016-17/SARFAESI ACT dated 14.09.2016 issued by the Manager (SARFAESI Act), Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Limited, and to quash the same. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that his father had mortgaged the prop...
Promod Kumar IPS Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in its order dated 09.08.2016 in O.A.No.165 of 2016 quash the same only in so far as it does not grant the relief in entirety as prayed for by the petitioner in OA No.165 of 2016 and consequently allow the said OA as prayed for. Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the order dated 09.08.2016 made in MA 310/00368/2016 in and OA 310/00165/2016 on the file of the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench and quash the same.) Common Order: 1. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.38696 of 2016 is at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu and the challenge is to the order dated 9 August 2016 in O.A.No.165 of 2016, revoking the suspension of Thiru.Pramod Kumar, I.P.S., the then Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, who is acc...
Kannan Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Vazhapady Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District dated 07.06.2016 in S.C.No.270 of 2012.) S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.270/2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., (2 counts). By judgment dated 07.06.2016, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count (no default sentence was imposed). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- There are two deceased in this case. Deceased Mrs.Gayathri is hereinafter referred to as D.1 . P.W.1 is the husband of D.1. The marriage between them was celebrated 7 years before her death. Out of the said wedlock, a male...
P. Sasikumar Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Alagapuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in SC No.112 of 2015 dated 21.07.2016). S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. A school going girl, aged hardly 14 years, while she was alone at home, was mercilessly killed by slitting her neck by knife and was robbed of her cell phone. The prosecution alleges that the appellant herein (A.2) and one Yugadityan (A.1) are the perpetrators of the crime. The trial Court convicted both the accused (vide Judgment dated 21.07.2016). The first accused has not made any appeal so far. The appellant/A.2 challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl - Ms.Thejashree. P.W.1 is residing at Vanniya nagar, Azhagapuram, Salem. P.W.2 Harini is the elder sister of the deceased. P.W.2 was formerly studying B.E (Civil Engineering) Course in a private E...
Cholan Transport Engineering Workers Union 97/TAJ, Rep.by its General ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Thanjavur, passed in A.S.No.8 of 2004, dated 04.02.2005, reversing the decree and judgment of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, passed in O.S.No.150 of 1998, dated 27.04.2000.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff Union filed the suit, in O.S.No.150 of 1998, before the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from collecting professional tax from the members of their Union on the ground that no prior notice for levy of professional tax was issued and there was no order for levy of professional tax. 4. After contest, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, by Judgment and Decree, dated 27.04.2000, decreed the suit. 5. Ag...
M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited rep. by its Authorised Signato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 9 (a)(b) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 136 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the respondent to furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,64,88,543/- or such sum that this Hon'ble Court may direct; within such time that this Hon'ble Court may stipulate along with an order of conditional attachment and in case of default to do so, order attachment of the property of the respondent more fully described in the schedule to the judge's summons through the District Court, Pune pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings and the enforcement of the award.) 1. In this application, the following substantive relief has been sought for by the applicant: " ......to direct the respondent to furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,64,88,543/- or such sum that this Hon'ble Court may direct; within such time that this Hon'ble Court may stipulate along with an order of conditional a...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »