Chennai Court August 2012 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.
M. Murugesan Vs. the Inspector of Police, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent and his agents like Promoters not to execute any sale to the petitioner’s property bearing S.No.47/3A/2A to an extent of 50 cents, situate at No.28, Perungalathur village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District within the south-Chennai Registration District.) 1. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent and his agents not to execute any sale, in respect of the property bearing S.No.407/3A/2A, having an extent of 50 cents, situated at No.28, Perungalathur village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the property in question belongs to the w...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, by Its Manager Mumbai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed to issue suitable directions to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT) Tirunelveli to entertain the execution petition in unnumbered EP.SR.No.2388/2012 in MCOP.No.161/ 2010.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.6.2012 made in in unnumbered EP.SR.No.2388/ 2012 in MCOP.No.161/2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT) Tirunelveli, returning the application. 2. The 1st Respondent herein/claimant suffered injuries in the accident that had occurred on 1.3.2010 at about 21.30 hours in the Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur Main Road, in which the vehicle Honda Motor Cycle belonging to the 2nd Respondent herein was involved, which was insured with Petitioner Insurance Company. The 3rd Respondent herein is the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,550/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. from the date of the claim petitio...
Dr. J.S. Rajkumar and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Alandur in C.C.No.520 of 2008 against the petitioner.) 1. This is a case of medical negligence. The 1st petitioner is a surgeon. The 2nd petitioner is the hospital of which, the 1st petitioner is the Managing Director. They face prosecution for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The 2nd respondent had a son by name Vignesh, who was then aged 20 years. He was a B.Com., graduate. Unfortunately, he was suffering from abnormal obesity and his weight was 211 Kgs. The deceased was advised by one Doctor J.S.Roy that he could undergo a surgery known as "weight loss surgery". He was also informed that the 1st petitioner was competent to do the said surgery. Thereafter, the deceased approached t...
Seetharam @ Selvam and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 06.07.2004 made in S.C.No.266 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Judge-I, Chennai.) 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2004, made in S.C.No.266 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai, whereby, accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 394 r/w. 397 IPC. A1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 407 IPC and A2 was further convicted for the offence under Section 407 r/w. 34 of IPC. For the offence under Section 364 IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment. For the offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine ...
McGan's Ooty School of Architecture Vs. the Directorate of Technical E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.1204 of 2012: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the following students:- ad>S.No.NameMode of Course1K.MunirajanRegular2SivakumarAFlexible3SakthideviKalivani KFlexible4A.VijayakumarFlexible5K.S.PadminiFlexible6RavinderA.Flexible7R.K.KannanFlexible8VinodKumar, D.T.Flexible9Manikandan, KFlexible10SuryaNarayanan, BFlexible11N.S.SaravananFlexible12N.MohanrajFlexibletosit for the M.Arch. first year semester examination commencing on the 20th of January, 2012 and thus render justice. W.P.No.16301 of 2012: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent dated 19.01.2012 and quash the same in Letter No.49677/J1 in so far it relates to non approval of the admission relating to the following students:- ad>S.No.NameMode of Course1Sivakumar, AFlexible2SakthideviKalivani, KFlexible3A.VijayakumarFlexible4RavinderA.Flexible5R.K.KannanFlexible6VinodKu...
Chinna Pillai and Another Vs. the State By, the Inspector of Police, K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.8 of 2009 on 11.11.2010) P.DEVADASS, J., APPELLANTS A1 and A2, in the Sessions Case, in S.C.No.8 of 2009, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri are the appellants. CONVICTION and SENTENCE 2. On 11.11.2010, A1 and A2 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to life and fined Rs.5000/-, in default, directed to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment. PROSECUTION CASE 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (i) A1, Chinnapillai is wife of deceased Rajendran. They were residing in Mettuparai village in Krishnagiri District. A2 Annamalai is known to them. All the three used to have liquor together. (ii) Illegal intimacy developed between A1 and A2. On 06.9.2008, at about 9 p.m., in his house, the deceased seen A1 and A2 in a compromising position. The deceased tried to beat them. In this circu...
Bader Sayeed Vs. the Southern India Education Trust and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the 1st respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref.No.6473/10/2010, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to constitute a Committee as per Vishaka's judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enquire into the allegations made against the respondents 3rd and 4th under the circumstances stated above.) 1. A practising Advocate and Joint Secretary of SIET, Chennai, has challenged the communication of the 1st Respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref. No. 6473/10/2010 and sought for a direction to the first respondent to constitute a Committee as per Vishaka's Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enquire into the allegations made against the Respondents 3 and 4. 2. On the basis of the pleadings and the material on record, in the form of Typed Set of papers filed by the contesting parties, Learned Senio...
K.K. Ramesh Vs. the District Collector, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to take appropriate action on the free patta sites given to 18 persons or otherwise arrange any other place for the 18 persons to construct houses thereon.) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J) 1. In this Writ Petition, filed as a public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to take appropriate action on the free patta sites given to 18 persons or otherwise arrange any other place for the 18 persons to construct houses thereon. 2. Today, the Writ Petition is posed under the caption "for admissibility". When the Writ Petition is taken-up for hearing, the Petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that he is withdrawing the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. In view of the submission and the endorsement made, the Writ Petition is ...
A. Govindarajan Vs. S. Karunanithi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 30.09.2008 made in M.C.O.P. No.433 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.M.AKBAR ALI, J) 1. This Appeal is filed against the order of dismissal dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, in M.C.O.P.No.433 of 2002. 2. The appellant herein, who is represented by his mother and next friend, A.Shanmugavadivu, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai, dated 30.09.2008 in M.C.O.P.No.433 of 2002, claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 17.12.2011. 3. According to the appellant, he was a practicing Advocate with standing experience of 9 years and was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month from his profession and Rs.2...
Rupesh and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 23.02.2005 made in S.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of III Fast Track Court, Additional District Sessions Court, Chennai - 600 001.) 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, Additional District Sessions Court, Chennai, whereby, the accused were convicted for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 r/w.34 IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, they were imposed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week Rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo six years Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment. 2. The respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the appellants stating that on 30.06.2004 at 3.30 p.m. while P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are brothers, were on their way to the opposite ...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »