Chennai Court October 2015 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.
D. Gayathri and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Princi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayers: W.P.No.35127 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned notification dated 09.12.2014 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same as far as Serial No.14, Computer Science as illegal and against livelihood of the petitioner, consequently direct the second respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Computer Science at Periyar University College of Arts and Science, Mettur. W.P.No.35128 of 2014:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned notification dated 09.12.2014 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same as far as Serial No.13, Commerce as illegal and against livelihood of the petitioner, consequently direct the second respondent to regularise ...
K.R. Latha Vs. The State, Rep by Inspector of Police, Vepery, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to Crime No.50/2015 on the file of Central Crime Branch, 7th Team, Vepery, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to Crime No.50/2015 on the file of Central Crime Branch, 7th Team, Vepery, Chennai and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 3. It is seen that on a complaint given by one Anbarasu, the respondent police registered a case in CCB Cr.No.232 of 2014 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and after completing the investigation has filed Final Report in C.C.No.10176 of 2014 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The crux of the allegation in the Final Report is that, K.R.Latha, the petitioner [A1] was running va...
Periyathambi @ Durai @ Venkatesan and Another Vs. State, rep. by the I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment of Conviction, dated 13.12.2011 made in S.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.) S. Tamilvanan, J. The Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the appellants / A1 and A3 against the judgment of conviction, dated 13.12.2011 made in S.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. 2.The appellants / A1 and A3 stand convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge thus:- ad>AccusedConviction under sectionSentence awardedA1120 (b) IPCLife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo six months R.I;302 of IPCLife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo six months R.I.;302 r/w.201 IPC7 years R.I and imposed fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months R.IA3120 (b) IPCLife imprisonm...
R. Ramamurthy Vs. T. Leelavathi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.7.2015 made in I.A.No.19920 of 2014 in O.S.No.6034 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.) 1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.6034 of 2011 on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs therein. The suit was filed for a declaration declaring that the respondents / plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. 2. While so, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.19920 of 2014 in O.S.No.6034 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint by raising so many grounds. But, when the matter was argued, ultimately, the revision petitioner confined his arguments only on two grounds as disclosed in the order dated 27.7.2015 made in I.A.No.19920 of 2014 in O.S.No....
C. Durairaju Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (SS-I ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give due regularization to the petitioner in the post of surveyor, Pudukottai with effect from 18.07.1988 with all attended monetary benefits.) 1. The petitioner has again visited this Court, although there was an order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2275 of 2005, on 10.06.2009, directing the respondents to consider his representation, dated 30.12.2004, in respect of giving due regularization on the date of sitting viz., 1985 to 1991, to the petitioner. Consequently, his service was regularized with effect from 18.07.1988 to 20.04.1996, however, he was not granted the monitory benefits from 1988 to 1996. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is, since the services of the petitioner are regularized with effect from 18.07.1988, the question of depriving the monitory benefits from 18.07.1985 till 20.04.1996, is wholly without any justification...
C. Chellamuthu Vs. The Deputy Director, Prevention of Money Laundering ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 05.09.2014 in FPA-PMLA-399/MUM/2012 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act at New Delhi.) 1. These appeals are filed challenging the order dated 05.09.2014, passed by Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals filed by appellants and confirming the provisional attachment order of adjudicating authority, dated 07.09.2012, made in complaint No.144/2012. 2. The appeals are against the common order, dated 05.09.2014 passed in FPA-PMLA-Nos.399 to 402, 406 to 408/MUM/2012 and the issue involved is one and the same. Hence, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of, by this common order. 3. Relevant Facts: (i) One Mr.R. Manoharan projected himself as proprietor of M/s. Bhagavathi Textiles Mills. He produced bogus and fabricated documents in connivance of one S. Arivarasu, the then Business Development Manager of M/...
Jeyapandi and Others Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Common Prayer:Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence, dated 19.07.2012, made in S.C.No.287 of 2010, by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.156 of 2012 are the accused Nos.1 to 5, the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.157 of 2012 are the accused Nos.6 to 13 and the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.159 of 2012 are the accused Nos.14 to 16 in S.C.No.287 of 2010 on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. The trial Court framed as many as five charges, as detailed below. Charge Nos.AccusedPenal Provisions1i) A1, A6, A12 to A16i) 147 and 148 r/w 149 IPCii) A2 to A5, A7 to A10 and A11ii) 148 and 147 r/w 149 IPC2i)A1i) 302 r/w 109 IPCii)A2 to A5ii) 302 IPCiii)A6 to A16iii) 302 r/w 149 IPC3i)A2 to A5i)324 IPCii)A1 and A6 to A16ii)324 r/w 149 IPC4i)A7 to A11i)326 IPCii)A1 to A6 and A12 to A16ii)326 r/w 149 IPC5i)A6, A14 to A16i)323 IPCii)A1 to A5 and A7 to A...
I. Sekaran Vs. E. Manickam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment dated 25.08.2014 made in Cr.M.P.No.1739 of 2014 in C.C.No.77 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai.) 1. Time and again, this Court was constrained to issue notice to the complainant for his appearance and disposal of the case; the complainant would appear in the Court only to disappear later ?. - This is the poignant observation of the Court below, upon the conduct of the complainant. With an observation that despite prompt appearance of A-1 and A-2, for a period of two years, the complainant was absent and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed, the complaint has been dismissed by order dated 25.08.2014. This order is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the nature of the allegations made in the complaint is with reference to the interest of the denominational trust and the amount of public money invol...
K. Muniappan Vs. K.T. Somasundaram and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.11.2014 passed in I.A.No.309 of 2014 in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.214 of 2015 in RCOP.No.166 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.) Common Order: 1. C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 arises out of the order dated 24.11.2014 made in I.A.No.309 of 2014 in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant, is the respondent in the aforesaid RCOP.No.64 of 2008 which was filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 for fixation of fair rent. The respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 has purchased the property from one Vijaya...
K. Elango and Others Vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayers: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, ” A Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct all future elections to be held for the Second Respondent in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in its Order dated 20.7.2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2002. Statutory provision contained in Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu AdvocatesWelfare Fund Act and the Resolution No.423 of 2012 dated 15.12.2012 passed by the First Respondent. (Prayer amended as per the Order dared 17.4.2015 made in W.P. No.24961 of 2013); A Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to follow the above guidelines in the election may be held on 10th September 2013 or any other date. A Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to issue appropriate directions either in the form of Guidelines or Regulations to the respective recognised Associations. namely the Respondents 4 to 7 relating to the manner in which elections ought to be conducte...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »