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.
Parasakthi Picture Mart, Rep. by Partner, S. Vairaprakasam, Sivakasi V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of respondent in CST:489551/95-96 dated 16.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, violative of the provisions of Section 22 of the TNGST Act, 1959 and against the Principals of Natural Justice.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of respondent in CST:489551/95-96 dated 16.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, violative of the provisions of Section 22 of the TNGST Act, 1959 and against the Principles of Natural Justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on business on execution of printing works and he is an assessee on the file of the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 and erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959. For the assessment year 1995-96 (CST) the petitioner reported ...
Muthupandi Thevar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent, pertaining to the order made in Memo No.605/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 28.6.2016 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Siva @ Sivaramalingam @ Periyavan, son of Muthupandi Thevar, aged about 24 years, detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Siva @ Sivaramanlingam @ Periyavan, aged about 24 years, son of Muthupandi Thevar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order, No.BCDFGISSSV No.605/2016, dated 28.6.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law O...
M/s. Paramount Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director K. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ by calling for the records of the respondent in his goods detention notice No.3741 dated 29.12.2016 and consequential compounding notice in G.D.No.3741/2016-17 dated 31.12.2016 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to release the goods of Hub Body detained vide goods detention notice No.3741 dated 29.12.2016 immediately.) 1. Issue notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The petitioner, before me, is a Customs House Clearing and Forwarding Agent (in short 'the agent'), who has filed a writ petition to impugn the Goods Detention Notice dated 29.12.2016 and consequential Compounding Notice dated 31.12.2016. 2.1. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstance, I would have...
V.P. Maragathamani Vs. The Authorised Officer (Recovery), REPCO Bank ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to remit the balance outstanding amount to the bank in 10 (ten) equal and successive monthly installment and continue to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule, consequently forbearing the respondents from taking any further action pursuant to the notice, dated 13.05.2016 in Ref.SRF.773, 774, 775, 776/2016/LAD, issued by the 1st respondent.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to remit the balance outstanding amount to the bank in 10 (ten) equal and successive monthly installment and continue to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule and consequently forbearing the respondents from taking any further action pursuant to the notice, dated 13.05.2016 in Ref.SRF.773, 774, 775, 776/201...
N. Rangarajan Vs. The Executive Office, Arulmigu Lakshmi Narasimha Swa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2010 made in A.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Session Judge, FTC-II, Ranipet, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2001 made in O.S.No.254 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2010 made in A.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC II, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 made in O.S.No.254 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. 2. Claiming that the plaintiff's family has the immemorial and hereditary right to prepare and sell Prasadam at the Madapalli of Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple on the Small Hills, Sholingar, the plaintiff has laid the suit. 3. The defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and th...
C. Kathiresan Vs. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Devel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned revision order in RC No.22771/10/M1 dated 18.06.2011 and consequential review order in RC.No.11335/11 M1 dated 20.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take the review petition dated 10.07.2011 filed by the petitioner on file and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within the period that may stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned revision order in RC No. 22771/10/M1 dated 18.06.2011, and consequential review order in RC.No.11335/11 M1 dated 20.08.2011, passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take the review petition dated 10.07.2011, filed by the petitio...
A.V. Ram Balaji, Proprietor Akshitha Property Developers and Another V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) Directing the defendant to specifically enforce the oral agreement of sale dated 01.08.2009 by executing Sale Deed to and in favour of the plaintiffs 2 of their nominees in respect of the suit property more fully described in the Schedule to the Plaint a agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant under the oral agreement dated 01.08.2009 on payment of the balance consideration of Rs.14,00,00,000/- and in the event of the defendant refuses to execute the Sale Deed this Hon'ble Court may duly direct the Registrar, High Court Original Side to execute the Sale Deed to and in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees on payment of the balance consideration of Rs.14,00,00,000/- by depositing the same in the account of the suit; b) direct the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property more ...
N. Sri Rangarajulu Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Bram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to SC No.96 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and quash the same.) 1. This petition is filed by the third accused in SC No.96 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Villupuram to quash the said criminal proceedings. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition, are as under: One Sankar lodged a complaint alleging that he has taken an agricultural land on lease from one Rajaram, who is the cousin of the petitioner herein. On 30.04.2011, when the complainant along with one Venugopal, was going to his lease land, carrying paddy seeds to seedbed, the paddy seed bags fell down on the field belonging to one Narayanasamy. On seeing the same, the said Narayanasamy and his two sons by names, Sri Rangarajulu/petitioner herein and Selvamuthukumar abused the complainant with filthy language and by using the name of his community. They further ass...
Anandaraj and Others Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police Kandaman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Prayer: Appeals filed u/s.374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram dated 07.06.2016 in S.C.No.337 of 2009.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are accused Nos.1 to 6 (A.1 to A.6) in S.C.No.337 of 2009 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram. They stood charged for the offenceS under Secs.148 and 302 read with 34 IPC. During the pendency of trial, A.2-Jothy died. Thus, the charges against him stood abated. The trial Court, by Judgment dated 07.06.2016 convicted the accused 1 and 3 to 6 under Secs.148 and 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sec.148 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each as against A.1, A.3, A.5 and A.6 and Rs.1,000/- for A.4, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC. Challengin...
A. Selvaraj Vs. The Management of Best Cost India Ltd., NoVelappan Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
(Pratyer: Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order passed in E.C.No.333 of 2012 dated 12.01.2016 on the file of Commissioner for Employee Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2) Teynampet, Chennai-6.) 1. The appellant, who is an employee/foundry operator of the first respondent, filed a petition for compensation in E.C.No.333 of 2012, against the respondents. 2. While awarding the compensation, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,35,911/- (ordered on 12.01.2016) shall be deposited by way of demand draft, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a order copy, to the credit of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai -600 006; failing which the compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum on the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident i.e. 23.08.2011. This order is under challenge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »