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.
R. Murugadoss @ Murugan Vs. State Through the Sub Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to call for the entire records and quash the same in Crime No.38 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police (Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB Crime, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District).) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.38 of 2007, pending on the file of the first respondent. 2. It is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 as complainants have given the First Information Report to the first respondent and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the petitioner has been shown as sole accused. Further it is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 have approached the petitioner only for getting post of cleaning labourers in a foreign country and further it is stated in t...
P. Anandhavalli Vs. V. Ranjith
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in O.S.S.R.No.17957 of 2012 on the file of I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in O.S.S.R.No.17957 of 2012 by the learned I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would detail and delineate that even without numbering the plaint as O.S., simply it was returned with the following endorsement, "The above suit is filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the portion permitted to occupy in the suit property. The plaintiff had paid court fees under Section 27(C) of the T.N. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955. Relying the Judgments in "1995 TLNJ 217, AIR 1984 Kerala 224" in which it was held that the suit for Mandatory injunction...
Andavar Kulandai and Others Vs. Radha (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 1.2.2012 made in unnumbered IA.No./2012 in OS.No.128/1997 by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 1.2.2012 made in unnumbered IA.No./2012 in OS.No.128/1997 by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, rejecting the application filed under Order 3 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of the proposed parties. 2. The Respondents 1 to 7 as Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession contending that Arumuga Pillai and Nagappa Pillai executed a trust deed dated 30.4.1951 dedicating the property for the family Deity Sri Muthuswami. The said Arumuga Pillai and Nagappa Pillai died. After the death of Arumuga Pilai, who had no issues, the heirs of Nagappa Pillai were the Trustees of Sri Muthuswami Deity. In the plaint, it is specifically stated that Nagappa Pillai had three sons, namely, Muthu Vel, the Defendants 1 and 2 and two daug...
M. Malakondiah and Another Vs. K. Palani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.4.2012 in I.A.No3054 of 2012 in O.S.No.2078 of 2006 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) ORDER 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.4.2012 in I.A.No3054 of 2012 in O.S.No.2078 of 2006 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs 1 and 2 and another filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to direct defendants 1 to 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction made by defendants 1 and 2 in the first floor on the Eastern side running to a length of 17 feet and to a breadth of 1 feet on the plaintiffs' property and marked as I and J and coloured red in the sketch attached with the plaint including a direction to defendants 1 and 2 to close the openings made by them on the Northern side wall of the second floor fac...
Periyasamy and Others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.12.2003, made in S.C.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Vridhachalam.) 1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31.12.2003, made in S.C.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Vridhachalam, whereby A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default in payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Sections 201 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default in payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against...
A. Krishnakumar Vs. V. Srinivasan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Civil revision petition filed against the judgement and decree dated 6.2.2009 passed by the VIII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in R.C.A.No.481 of 2006 confirming the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the XII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in R.C.O.P.No.437 of 2005.) 1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 6.2.2009 passed by the VIII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in R.C.A.No.481 of 2006 confirming the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the XII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in R.C.O.P.No.437 of 2005, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The deceased R.Shanmugham Chettiar filed the RCOP No.437 of 2005, invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking ...
E.M. Mohammed Raffique Vs. K. Rajram Reddiar (Died) Rep by His Legal R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.04.2012 passed in E.A.No.16 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2010 in HRCOP No.65 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller at Pondicherry.) 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.04.2012 passed in E.A.No.16 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2010 in HRCOP No.65 of 2008 by the Rent Controller at Pondicherry, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who would submit that this is an order passed in E.A. in E.P. in connection with the Rent Control matter and hence this revision. 3. I would like to refer to Sections 18 and 25 of the of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, which are extracted hereunder: "Execution of orders 18. Every order made under Sections 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal under section 23 or on revisions under section 25 shall be executed by the Munsif having jurisdiction over t...
S.K.R. Devaraj Vs. the Authorised Officer, Regional Office Trichy Road ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent with respect to the sale notice dated 5.6.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the fourth respondent to adjudicate S.A.No.49 of 2012 without imposing any onerous orders.) D. MURUGESAN, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court with the grievance that M/s.Vetrivel Enterprises represented by the second respondent had availed certain loans from the respondent bank. Sometime during July 2011, one Thiru.Anburaj, Thiru.Rangaraj and his wife Premalatha came to the residence of the petitioner. The said Anburaj and others impressed the petitioner that arrangement would be made for a loan with the said Vetrivel Enterprises. Believing their words, the petitioner, alongwith his friend one Muthukumar, accompanied the said Anburaj and Rangaraj alongwith the copies of the title deeds and on the promise that th...
M. Rosy and Another Vs. the Secretary to Government, Department of Hea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Both these writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to allot one MBBS seat to the petitioners based on the marks obtained / rank list under the special category (Orthopedically Physically Disabled) for the academic year 2012-2013 subject to verification of medical records and medical examination to the petitioners.) Common Order 1. Both writ petitions were filed for the purpose of directing the second respondent Secretary, Selection Committee to allot seats to the petitioners in MBBS curse bsed on the marks obtained / rank list under the special category (Orthopedically Physically Disabled) for the academic year 2012-2013 subject to the verification of medical records and medical examination to the petitioners. 2. When these writ petitions came up on 19.7.2012, notice on admission was ordered. This court directed the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.V.Jayaprakash...
Ms. Anuj Jermi Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records relating to the case in P.R.C.No.27 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and to quash the case in P.R.C.No.27 of 2011.) ORDER “When a woman is assaulted she may not stop to think in terms of himsa or ahimsa. Her primary duty is self-protection. She is at liberty to employ every method or means that come to her mind in order to defend her honour. God has given her nails and teeth. She must use them with all her strength and, if need be, die in the effort. The man or woman who has shed all fear of death will be able not only to protect himself or herself but others also through laying down his life”. This is what our father of the Nation, Mahathma Gandhiji, wrote in "Harijan". The case on hand is such a classic case where the accused an young college going girl of hardly 19 years of age, stabbed her father thrice on h...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »