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.
M/s. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. represented by its power agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of respondent No.2 comprised impugned order of the respondent No.2 dated 20.08.2015 in reference to proceedings vide TIN:33050641137/2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and all proceedings pursuant and consequent thereto, including, the Notice in Form-O dated 20.08.2015 and Form RR dated 20.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.) Common Order: 1. The captioned Writ Petitions are directed against seven (7) separate orders of even date, i.e., 20.08.2015. The impugned orders pertain to Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. 2. It is pertinent to note that some of the issues dealt with in the impugned orders are common, while others do not find mention in the impugned orders. 2.1. It is, however, common ground between the parties before me, that, the following issue...
Madhu Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police Madhikonpalayam, D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 389(1) r/w.439 of Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in S.C.No.61 of 2015.) Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.61 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 379 and 201 read with Section 302 IPC. By judgement dated 22.7.2016, the trial Court convicted the accused under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 379 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous im...
R. Kalamani Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Tirupur and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondents to receive the petitioner's application dated 18.11.2013 for renewal of permit which was refused by the second respondent vide memo in N.Dis.No.59931/A3/2013 in respect of mini bus permit on the route Samundipuram to Thirumuruganpoondi in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-39-K-7603 and to consider the same and to pass orders in accordance with law.) Order: 1. The petitioner via the captioned writ petition seeks a direction from this Court to the effect that the respondent nos.1 and 2 should receive the petitioner's application dated 18.11.2013 for renewal of permit. 2. It may be seen that the petitioner's Late husband Mr.M.Ramakrishnan had been issued a Mini Bus permit to ply the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN39-K-7603, on the route, spanning between Samundipuram to Thirumuruganpoondi. 2.1. The averments in the affidavit...
Mahalingam Vs. Ramalingam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed in A.S.No.149 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011 in O.S.No.71 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur.) 1. The second plaintiff is the appellant herein and he along with the first plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for possession. As the Courts below concurrently rejected the case of the plaintiffs, the present appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law: (a)Whether in law the Courts below are justified in holding the due execution of the registered Will dated 08.07.1963 (certified copy) Ex.A1 has not been not proved by the plaintiffs, for want of production of original of the said Will when the fact remains that subsequent to the death of plaintiffs' father, they were under the guardianship of Chinn...
Palaniammal Vs. K. Gopalan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: The Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.1104 of 2013 in O.S.No.120 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode, dated 26.02.2014.) 1. Petitioner is the plaintiff. The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed on 26.02.2014 in I.A.No.1104 of 2013 in O.S.No.120 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Tiruchengode. 2. The Suit has been filed for declaration and consequential injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an Application for amending the Plaint. The Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff is contrary to the descriptions available in Ex.P1, Sale Deed and further averred that the Plaint description of the property is for a larger extent and the amendment sought for is to restrict the claim into half share. In view of such contradi...
Senguntha Mudaliar Pavadi Panchayath rep. By its President S. Kailasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order passed in Unnumberred I.A. Of 2013 in I.A.No.517 of 2013 (Old 1A No.98/06) in O.S.No.238 of 2010 (Old OS No.88 of 2005) dated 5.9.2013,on the file of Sub Judge,Tiruchengode. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.09.2013, passed in Unnumberred I.A........ of 2013 in I.A.No.517 of 2013 (Old 1A No.98/06) in O.S.No.238 of 2010 (Old O.S No.88 of 2005) dated 5.9.2013, on the file of Sub Judge,Tiruchengode. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defendant in the Suit and the respondent filed the Suit for division of the Suit Property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and allot the souther half share to the plaintiff and for permanent injunctions. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.517 of 2013, seeking appointment of a Commissioner, wh...
K. Bhaskar and Others Vs. R. Thiyagarajan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal (MD).No.1221 of 2016 and Writ Appeal (MD).SR.No.47454 of 2016 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 15.06.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.8439 of 2015 on the file of this Court. C.M.P.(MD).No.11934 of 2016 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.47454 of 2016 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 127 days in filing appeal against the order, dated 15.06.2016 in W.P.(MD).No.8439 of 2015 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment: R. Subbiah, J. 1. Since W.A.(MD).No.1221 of 2016 and W.A.(MD).SR.No.47454 of 2016 arise out of the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.8439 of 2015, the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD).No. 8439 of 2015 has filed W.A.(MD).No.1221 of 2016 and the State has preferred W.A.(MD).SR.No.47454 of 2016, along with the petition for condonation of delay of 127 days in filing th...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur Vs. K. Rathamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2004, dated 27.08.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company as against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2004. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants before the Tribunal, who are the legal heirs of late Kittusamy, who died in a road traffic accident. The fourth respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and the fifth respondent its owner. 3. The case of the claimants is that the late Kittusamy was an Exporter and doing export of Woven Goods and he was running a concern under the name and style of Siva Mills employing several persons and was also carrying on export business and earning huge profits, which was not less than ...
Saky Systems and Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New No.283, TTK Road, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned demand notice, dated 27.06.2003 issued by the third respondent in F.No.S13/12/02/Accts. and to quash the same as illegal.) Order: 1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the notice issued by the third respondent/Chief Accounts Officer, Custom House, Chennai, dated 27.06.2003, whereby, the petitioner has been demanded to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,350/- towards cost recovery charges. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing old mobile phones from other Countries, and after carrying out the repair works in their Unit, re-export them to other Countries. Since import and export is involved in the business activities of the petitioner, the petitioner was required to obtain a Private Bonded Warehouse Licence from the Commissioner of Customs. On his application, the Commissioner of Customs had granted licence, bearing No...
Kumar Vs. The State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 r/w 382 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Sessions Case No.5/2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 376 r/w 511 I.P.C., Sections 3 (1)(xi), 3(1)(xii) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. By judgment dated 07.12.2006, the trial Court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »