Chennai Madurai Court October 2016 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.
E. Rajendran Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 02.07.2014, made in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2014, by the learned Ist -Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy.) Judgment: S.Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By judgment dated 02.07.2014, the trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, convicted the appellant/accused under the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and se...
P. Milany Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016. 2. The appellant/petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016 seeking to quash the order of the second respondent, dated 19.02.2016 and also a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission and provide necessary protection to the appellant/petitioner and their community members to worship and celebrate their annual festival at Arulmighu Sikkumallammal Temple, Kattunayaganpatti, Theni District. 3. The facts of the case: (i) In a Temple, by name Arulmighu Sikkumallammal, in Kattunayaganpatti at Theni District belonging to Okkalikar Community, there is a dispute between two groups with regard to conduct of festival of the Temple. The said Temple is not under the control of H....
Poolankudi Poovhilugandha Ayyanar and Vinayagar Temple, Poolankudi Vil ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2002 made in A.S.No.38 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999 made in O.S.No.65 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Sigaganga. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2002 made in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999 made in O.S.No.65 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Sigaganga.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.65 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sivagangai is the appellant in the above second appeals. 2. The plaintiff / appellant filed a suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to the temple and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants fro...
M. Gnanaraj Pastorate Committee Member, St. George's Church, Madurai V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town to expedite the proceedings in I.A.No.522 of 2016 in O.S.No.367 of 2016 on its file, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town to expedite the proceedings in I.A.No.522 of 2016 in O.S.No.367 of 2016, on its file, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.367 of 2016 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town, for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.522 of 2016 for restraining the third respondent from functioning as chief Priest of St.George's Church, Madurai, pending the suit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the ...
S. Haji Mohammed Vs. K. Selvaraj and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to expedite the proceedings in R.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.) Common Order 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed seeking a direction to the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, to dispose of R.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2014, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent in C.R.P.No.2042 of 2016 is a tenant of shop Nos.202 and 203 for 15 years, for a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and failed to pay the rent for the past five years. Hence the Petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) 28 /1960. 3. The respondent in C.R.P.No.2043 of 2016 is a tenant of shop Nos. 102, 116, 117, 118 and 119 for 15 years, for a monthly rent of Rs.3,050/- and failed to pay the monthly rent from April 2012 onwar...
Kannan @ Ramanathan Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Vadakadu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 27.04.2015 made in S.C.No.76 of 2011, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.76 of 2011, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. There were three other accused, by name, Mr.Chinnakannu, Mrs.Suriyakala and Mr.Baskaran, who were arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 4 in the case. The Trial Court framed two charges against all the four accused, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11 to 4498(A)IPC21 to 4304(B) IPC By Judgment dated 27.04.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.2 to 4 from both the charges, however, convicted the appellant/the first accused alone, as detailed below:- Section of LawSentenceFine amount498(A) IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Rs.5,000/- in default...
Dr. Sasikumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent by directing the 3rd respondent to register a case against wrong doer by attempting to evict the petitioner from the said house.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
B. Shanmugam Vs. The Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipality, Municipali ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality. 2. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be sufficed if the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.06.2011, is disposed of, by the second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court. 3. In view of the ab...
M. Wilson Sundarraj Vs. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Bo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from drawing electricity line across the petitioner's property from pole No.5 stands in the petitioner's patta land in Re-Sy.185/9 Nallur Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
S. Kathamuthu Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary and Gratuity together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) Order: 1. The benefits bestowed by law upon an employee in recognition of his committed continuous loyal and devoted duty by payment of the pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. are in the nature of property. 2. This right to property cannot be taken away without following due process of law, as right to property has been recognised under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is an accepted position that Gratuity and pension are not the bounties. The concern expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court impressing that the retirement dues must be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »