Chennai Madurai Court June 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.
Jeba Raj and Others Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.229 of 2007 by judgment dated 24.10.2007.) 1. A1 to A3 in S.C.No.229 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, are the appellants. 2. Ultimately, after the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as detailed below. A1 to A3 are convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fined Rs.1,000/- i/d to 2 months S.I. A1 to A3 were also convicted under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced to 1 month R.I. A1 is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fined Rs.1000/- i/d to 3 months S.I. A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fined Rs.500/- in default to 1 month S.I. each. 3. Their multiple sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have paid their fine amo...
Nallathambi Vs. Annai Mary and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.63 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, dated 07.11.2012.) 1. The husband of the first respondent, who is the father of the second respondent challenges grant of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to them in M.C.No.63 of 2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. 2. The couples were blessed with two female children. Due to their difference of opinion, the spouses got separated. The elder daughter is with the revision petitioner, while younger daughter is with the first respondent, who is the second respondent in this revision. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the first respondent/wife has unreasonably withdrawn her society from her husband. So she is not entitled to get maintenance from her husband. Even, inspite of a decree for con...
K. Avudaiappa Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to to register the Petitioner's name in the Contractor List of his office as Contractor to take contract works worth upto Rs.20,00,000/- by considering his application, dated 1.4.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is having the legal and constitutional right to ask the Second Respondent/The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Vathirayiruppu, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District to register his name in his Office Register as Contractor to take contract works worth upto Rs.20 lakhs from his Office. 4. It appears that the Petitioner's name has not been registered as Contractor to take up the contract works worth upto Rs.20 lakhs. As a result of which, there is deprivation of his right to work as Con...
Beer Mohammed @ Beer Maideen and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspect ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.126 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.126 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police. 4...
A. Suresh Kumar Vs. The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Tr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in WP(MD) No.6653/2016 / TR 2079031785316 dated 5.5.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to issue passport to the petitioner in connection with file No.TR 2079031785316 forthwith.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner, he is functioning as the Clerical Secretary of the CSI Trichy-Tanjore Diocese, duly elected on 15.04.2015. He is also a Governing Board Member of Bishop Heber (Autonomous) College at Trichy and holding a very important position in religious activities as Clobal Link Officer, CSI Trichy-Tanjore Diocese. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that he is the holder of Indian Passport from the year 1984 and also not subjected to any adverse remarks. In fact, the last passport bearing No.F7609479 was issued on 12.04.2006, which was valid upto ...
V. Kesavan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.02 of 2012 and to file charge sheet before the concerned criminal court within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Some of the accused, who are alleged to have committed certain offences under P.C.Act and Indian Penal Code, seeks direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Theni, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to complete the investigation in Cr.No.2 of 2012 within a prescribed time and file the final report before the concerned Court according to law. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are public servants. They are working as Assistant Engineers in Agricultural Engineering Department. They are under great mental strain and pain. However, there is no progress in the investigation of the case. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that every step has been taken by t...
M. Abdul Jaffer Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2015 within a reasonable time for removal of the wrong entry of Natham Puromboke in the A-Register on the file of the 2nd respondent in respect of Survey No.415/18 and 415/9.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court praying for passing of an order in directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 05.06.2015 within a reasonable time for removal of the wrong entry of Natham Poromboke in the A-Register on the file of the 2nd respondent in respect of Survey Nos.415/18 and 415/9. 5. At this stage, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 brings it to the notice of this ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
T. Raja,J. 1. The interesting prayer made in this Writ Petition is that when the petitioner, namely, Sri Amarvathi Spinning Mills made an application to the respondents to reduce his KVA due to recession in their production activity, the Superintending Engineer, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Karur, has refused to entertain their request citing an impracticable reason that a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8572 of 2011 is pending before this Court, whereas, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, in favour of the petitioner, as early as on 20.02.2016. The petitioner again renewed his request stating that their production has drastically come to an end due to various other reasons, yet, the request of the petitioner has not been considered forcing the petitioner to come before this Court. 2. Hence, notice through Court as well as privately returnable by 06.07.2016....
Ayyappan Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed, under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in S.C.No.120 of 2005, dated 13.09.2006.) 1. The sole accused in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.120 of 2005, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, is the appellant. 2. He was tried for a charge for under Section 302 IPC. After trial, the Court recorded conviction, under Section 306 IPC., and sentenced him to three years R.I and also fined him Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. He has paid the fine amount. 3. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under:- (1) Around 2002, the appellant had married the deceased. She is the daughter of P.W.4. P.W.4's other daughter and son are P.W.1 and P.W.5. The appellant and the deceased were living in Palayampatti Village in Virudhunagar District. They were blessed with a c...
S. Thibursian Vs. The Chief Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Road ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,96,770/- as per the agreement DR No.3/2010-2011 and C.R.Agreement No.10/2013-2014 dated 02.08.2013 in considering the representation dated 05.11.13.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 21.06.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid letter, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....