Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
M/s. Harini Agencies, Rep. by its Proptx. S. Bagyalakshmi, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(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 compounding order in Form No.46 in GDN No.2217/16-17 OR No.2243/2016-17, dated 15.12.2016, and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to refund the compounding fee of Rs.1,09,346/- paid by D.D.No.245, dated 15.12.2016, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd.,.) 1. Issue notice. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 1.1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This writ petition is directed against the compounding order dated 15.12.2016. 3. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, says, having regard to the circumstances obtaining in the present case, he would argue the matter based on the record filed before this Court. 4. Briefly, the fact...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karunagaran Vs. The Secretary, Chennai Port Trust, Administrative O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from verifying the community certificate of the petitioner dated 22.12.1983 issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupattur, Vellore Ditrict.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition is instituted by an employee of the Chennai Port Trust, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from verifying his community certificate dated 22.12.1983, issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 2. The first respondent to the Writ Petition is the Secretary to Chennai Port Trust, while the second respondent is the State Level Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the State Government for verification of the claims relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 3.The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Technician (M echanical) on 12the January, 1983, in the Chennai Port Trust, against a vaca...
Tag this Judgment!Subru @ Subramani Vs. State, Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Royakotta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.30 of 2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. A gang rapist - it is alleged - who stands convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii), 392 read with Section 379 IPC, 376(D) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, has come up with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentences. He is the second accused in S.C.No.30 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. There were three other accused in this case, by name, C.Prakash, I.G.Mani @ Mani and T.Prakash. The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against all the four accused, as detailed below: Sl.No.Charges (Section of law)accused1.U/s.341 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 to A42.U/s.323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeA1 to A43.U/s.506(ii) read ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman cum Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.295 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the first defendant against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.50/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.295/2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal: Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are based upon perverse findings and misdirected against the evidence on record. 3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for damages. 4...
Tag this Judgment!M. Maria Rajam Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Office of th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned letter of the respondent in No.35069/U2/2016, dated 27.10.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to hear the appeal and pass orders in the appeal.) 1. Seeking to quash the impugned letter of the respondent dated 27.10.2016 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to hear the appeal and pass orders on the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, she became the owner of the property measuring an extent of about 4000 sq. ft. in Plot No.2, Arcot Road, Lakshmi Nagar, Virugambakkam Village, comprised in Survey Nos.186, 187, 190/1, 190/2 and 191 part, by means of the Settlement Deed executed by her husband viz. Michael Arokiam, in her favour. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband executed a Power of Attorn...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balaguru and Another Vs. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern R ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.23955 of 2016 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to run Sweet Stall at Ramanathapuram Railway Station as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.12.2016 and considering the recommendation of the fourth respondent dated 22.09.2014 and 01.08.2015. Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.23956 of 2016 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to run Combined Fruit and Vegetarian Tea Stall at Ramanathapuram Railway Station as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24/27.12.2012 and considering the recommendation of the fourth respondent dated 22.09.2014.) Common Order: 1. In both these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to grant permission to run Stall at Ramanathapuram Railway Station, as per the procee...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai Vs. P. Selvi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 19.02.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivagangai (District Court, Sivagangai). R. Subbiah, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, as against the order dated 19.02.2015, made in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- District Court, Sivagangai,, awarding a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the claimants before the Tribunal. 2. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Panchavarnam and the second and third respondents are the son and daughter of the deceased respectively. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that on 10.09.2010, when the first respondent's husband was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-63-F-4017 near Thoothai Vilakku, at about 10.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi Sundaram Vs. The District Treasury Officer, Office of the Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.10266/2013/E1 dated Nil 09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to reimburse the amount recovered from the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.10266/2013/E1 dated Nil 09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to reimburse the amount recovered from the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer and he retired from service on 31.08.2002. While so, after 11 years of his retirement, this impugned order has been passed suddenly by the respondents, without ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Udhayam Enterprises Ltd., Rep. by its Director, K.K.V. Sethuraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to return the document of the petitioner which was given as security and sub matter of O.A.No.1305 of 2000 on the file of DRT-I, Chennai as per the letter issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.02.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Though, considerable time was spent, at the end of the arguments, Mr.Adi Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition and going through the materials on record, we are not inclined to permit withdrawal, and proceed to pass the following order. 2. M/s.Udhayam Enterprises Limited, Sriperumputhur, has availed loan from Fedral Bank Limited, State of Kerala, the 1st respondent by executing promissory notes, and deposit of title deeds of immovable property. There was a default in payment. Therefore, Fedral Bank Limited, has filed O.A.No.1305 of 2000, for the following prayers; a) Directing the Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Soloman Pappachan Vs. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd., Represented by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the exparte award passed by the third respondent herein passed in A.C.P.No.(KMP/VI).97 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010. ) 1. Heard Mr.N.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner/borrower and Mr.D.Sathyaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Finance Company. 2. This order will cover O.P.No.80 of 2012 as well as A.Nos.4004 of 2011 and 4005 of 2011. 3. The facts are that the borrower availed a loan from the respondent Finance Company for purchase of a used car. This cannot be disputed as the loan agreement was entered much after the borrower became the owner of the vehicle, as is evident from the Certificate of Registration which shows that the vehicle was registered in the name of the borrower as early as on 06.01.2007, whereas the hypothecation was only on 22.01.2007. Thus, the Court concludes that this finance arrangement is for a used car. The borrower having committed defau...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »