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.
Kumaran @ Nainar Kumar Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in M.No.28689/2012, dated 27.03.2015 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has visited this Court on 3rd occasion. Initially, he has filed two other writ petitions viz., W.P.(MD)No.11058 of 2014 and W.P.(MD)No.14920 of 201. The W.P.(MD)No.11058 of 2014 has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents therein to issue pass to him for a sum of Rs.19,050/- paid vide Chalan Nos.143 and 63, dated 19.06.2014 and 26.06.2014, through the State Bank of India. This was allowed on 16.07.2014, directing the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, to consider and dispose of his representation, dated 25.06.2014, on merits. 2. Again the petitioner had filed one another W.P.(MD)No.14920 of 2014, seeking one another Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Collecto...
M/s. Vishnu Electricals, Kundrathur, Chennai Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: W.P.No.5685 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to process only those tenders submitted pursuant to tender Specification No.M-21/2014-15, that does contain the type test certificates or the values in Schedule B, arrived at on the basis of the specifications in Schedule I of the tender.) Common Order: A policy decision was taken by the official respondents to procure Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers as per the guidelines of Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India in the month of August, 2008. Tenders were called in which bids of 40 tenderers were opened. After finalisation of tenders, LOAs were issued to number of firms. Out of them, purchase orders have been issued to 20 firms. Thereafter, the aforesaid firms, who bagged the orders, started working towards compliance of the purchase orders. One firm has already sold the transformers and ...
Perumal Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy dated 28.03.2005.) 1. The appellant was found guilty under Section 376 IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. This judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The charge against the appellant is that by offering inducement, the accused took away a minor girl aged 5 years and committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution had examined 13 witnesses and marked 12 documents and exhibited three material objects to prove the offence. Brief Facts: 3. The parents (P.Ws. 1 and 2) and the minor girl (P.W.11) were the residents of Trichy Karumandapam North Street and the house belonged to P.W.3, namely, Seerangammal. In the same build...
Mohamed Rabeek Vs. Haja Mohaideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 16.06.2015 made in I.A.No.576 of 2014 in I.A.No.577 of 2014 in O.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 16.06.2015 made in I.A.No.577 of 2014 in O.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam.) Common Order: 1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam. It is a suit for recovery of money. 2. The plaintiff therein filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment of the petition scheduled property of the revision petitioner/tenant. 3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner filed his ...
P. Ashokan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents extend the lease period of quarry lease by 6 months pursuant to the lease agreement dated 29.09.2010 in respect of lands in S.No.207(part) situated in Thiruchunai village, Melur Taluk Madurai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015.) Mr.AL.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the prayer in this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the lease period of quarry by 6 months, pursuant to the lease agreement, dated 29.09.2010, in respect of lands in S.No.207(part) situated in Thiruchunai village, Melur Taluk Madurai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015, has become infructuous, as the first respondent/District Collector has already passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the Wri...
Mohamed Imran Mansoori and Another Vs. Intelligence Officer Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.465 of 2014 in C.C.No.40 of 2014 in Crime No.48/1/05/2014-NCB/MDS on the file of the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, dated 30.09.2014.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.C. No. 40 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore. The petitioners were arrested on 25.03.2014 for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w. 21(c), 23, 25, 27, 27A and 29 of the Natcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act ?), alleging that they were found in possession and involved in trafficking of commercial quantity of the drug Heroin ?. The accused were brought for remand extension on 27.08.2014, but, there is no presiding officer for the Special ...
R. Jayaraman Vs. T. Anandanayagi and Another
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 11.8.2015 in RCA No.4 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge of Puducherry.) 1. The second respondent herein is the landlord and the revision petitioner is the tenant. The second respondent filed H.R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2007 for eviction alleging that the revision petitioner committed wilful default. 2. While so, the first respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.74 of 2013 in H.R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2007 to implead her as a party as she has purchased the property from the second respondent herein. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed I.A.No.74 of 2013 in H.R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2007 on 12.3.2015. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.4 of 2015 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the said RCA on 11.8.2015. The present revision petition is filed against the aforesaid order. 3. I have heard the le...
P. Kasilingam Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 14.09.2012 made in S.C.No.310 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.310 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges against the appellant, as detailed below. ChargePenal Provisions1294(b) IPC2302 IPC By Judgment dated 14.09.2012, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- Convicted under SectionsSentence imposedFine amount302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.294(b) IPCTo undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. ...
Union of India, represented by General Manager, Integral Coach Factory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in O.A.No.310/00585/2014, dated 25.03.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal, is to the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.310 of 2014, dated 25th March, 2015, by which the Tribunal has directed the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, to refix the pension and calculate the retirement benefits with effect from 01.12.2011, taking into consideration the last drawn pay of Rs.12,550, drawn by the respondent, as Progressman, in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200, with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, as per the Service Certificate S(3)E-11944, dated 30.11.2011, issued by the Office of the General Manager/PB, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, and to issue the revised pension payment order. 2. Facts, in a nutshell, are as follows : 2.1. The respondent was originally appointed in...
Vadivel Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Trichy District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, in S.C.No.44 of 2012, dated 20.07.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.44 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 20.07.2012, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Thiyagarajan. The wife of the accused is one Mrs.Valli. Mr.Thiyagarajan had illicit intimacy with Mrs.Valli. The accused reprimanded Mr.Thiyagarajan and wanted...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »