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.
T.T.V. Dhinakaran Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, against the order dated 05.05.2000 made in Appeal No.51/98 on the file of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05.05.2000 made in Appeal No.51/98 on the file of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: (i) Originally, a total penalty of Rs.31 Crores has been imposed on the appellant for contraventions of the provisions of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( FERA in short), by way of an adjudication order passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), New Delhi, the respondent herein, in Order No.SDE(APK)/111/03/98 dated 06.02.1998. This adjudication order ...
P. Susaimanickam Vs. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for all the records pertaining to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.543, Home (Prison-I) Department, dated 16.08.2014 and impugned G.O.Ms.No.544, Home (Prison-I) Department, dated 16.08.2014, both issued by the 1st respondent herein and the consequential impugned order No.33095/CS2/2010 dated 19.08.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent of Prisons with all the attendant benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned three orders viz., (1) G.O.Ms.No.543, Home (Prison-I) Department, dated 16.08.2014, issued by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner was reverted back from the post of Jailer to the post of Deputy Jailer; (2)G.O.Ms.No.544, Home (Prison-I) Department, ...
K. Sivakumar Vs. Marappa Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani in I.A.No.1693 of 2014 in O.S.No.88 of 2013.) 1. The defendant is the revision petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed by him under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the second time, the present revision is preferred. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the revision petitioner that earlier an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit properties in I.A.No.387 of 2013; however in that application he was set exparte. According to him, the said Commissioner without even issuing notice, has inspected the suit property and filed his report and plan. Hence, the present application in I.A.No.1693 of 2014 in O.S.No.88 of...
A. Annie Sheela Rani Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Planni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P.No.589/2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the 1st respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Letter No.4060/SPC/2014-4, dated 03.09.2015 and from the 2nd respondent's proceedings in reference number Proc.Rc.No.3728/A1/SPC/2015, dated 14.12.2015, and to quash the same and to award exemplary costs. Prayer in W.P.No.2991/2016:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the proceedings in reference number Proc.Rc.No.2801/A1/SPC/2015, dated 20.10.2015 and to quash the same and to award exemplary costs. Prayer in W.P.No.5465/2016:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to Letter ...
Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Petition filed under section 439 of CRPC praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in CR.No.4738/16 on the file the respondent.) 1. This is a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. Pallikaranai Police registered a case in Crime No.4738 of 2016 under Section 143, 294(b), 188, 285, 332 IPC r/w Section 3 of TNP (PDL) Act in connection with an occurrence taken place on 31.12.2016. 3. In this connection, Police arrested A1 to A14. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur remanded them to judicial custody. In Crl.M.P. No.20 of 2017 they have sought for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet. On 04.01.2017, the bail petition came before the learned Sessions Judge for hearing. Since the learned Public Prosecutor sought for time, it was adjourned to 9.1.2017. In between there are two working days (05.01.2017 and 06.01.2017) and two holidays (07.01.201...
Heeralal Constructions Pvt Limited by its Managing Director, Gopichand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.) 1. This civil suit is filed by the Plaintiffs to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- a. directing the 1st Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.11,34,37,500/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs.8,25,00,000/- at 15% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. b. directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint, is as follows:- a. The 1st Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2nd Plaintiff is the Managing Director of the 1st Plaintiff Company. The Defendants 1 and 2 are also Companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The 3rd Defendant, as has been brought out in the evidence, is the brother's son of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff Company was incorporated on 20.09.1978 with the object of undertaking real estate ...
C. Kamaraj and Another Vs. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer in W.P.No.7648 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.211/2015, Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 09.03.2015, and quash the same. in W.P.No.16617 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.2275/2015, Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 30.03.2015 and quash the same. in W.P.No.31309 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in Election Notification dated 15.09.2015 issued under Section 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Rules, 1983, which was duly published in the Dinamani Daily newspaper on 18.09.2015 insofar as E-81, Virudhachalam Cooperative Bank, and quash the same.) Common Order: 1. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.16617 and 31309 of ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.D.No.10 of 2003, dated 30.04.2010 and to quash the same as illegal and invalid.) 1. The petitioner Corporation challenging the award passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.10 of 2003, dated 30.04.2010, has come out with the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent was a conductor working at the petitioner's Corporation. While so, a charge memo was issued against him on 08.01.2002. Based on which domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately pursuant to the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the said removal of service, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute by filing I.D.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the second respondent. 3. By order dated 29.03.2010, a preliminary award was passed, whereby the Labour Court found that the domest...
Ongan A. Arumugam Vs. Thangammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
(Common Prayer:Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2009 in A.S.Nos.55 of 2009 and 56 of 2009 respectively on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 in O.S.Nos.717 of 2007 and 1033 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem.) Common Judgment 1. Challenge in these second appeals are made by the defendant in O.S.No.717 of 2007/plaintiff in O.S.No.1033 of 2007 against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2009 passed in A.S.Nos.55 of 2009 and 56 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub ordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgement and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed in O.S.Nos.717 of 2007 and 1033 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The second appeals have been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in the second appeals. (i) When the 1st res...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant. 2. It comes to be known that the notice was served on the Respondent [vide letter dated 26.12.2016 of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court I, Allikulam, Chennai 3]. There is no representation on the side of the Respondent at the time of calling of the matter at 10.40 a.m. either in person or through Learned Counsel. 3. In view of the fact that the notice was served on the Respondent, this Court proceeds further in disposing of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, he had applied for the copy application on 18.08.2016 before the trial Court in C.C.No.1455 of 2012 and received the order copy on 24.08.2016. The reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant for the delay of 8 days in preferring the instant Appeal in Crl.A.Sr.No.39429 of 2016 is that the Petitioner could not file copy application because of 'Boycott of Courts Advocates' and...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »