Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
Santhi M. Vannan Vs. State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madura ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits. 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AH-0499, belonging to the petitioner's company, namely, Shanthi Transport Corporation, while proceeding towards Rajapalaym from Madurai, colluded with a two wheeler, which resulted in attacking the bus driver with stone and bricks and also broke the rear glass of the bus and TV sets. The...
Tag this Judgment!K.R.M. Paul Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Refo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation sent by the petitioner dated 30.07.2007 and further direct the respondents to release the acquired excess vacant land and situate at Selaiyur Village in S.No.285/2A, 285/3A and 285/3C to an extent of 5750 sq.meters.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that the land in question duly comprised in S.Nos.285/2A, 285/3A and 285/3C of Selaiyur Village in all measuring 5750 sq.meters viz., 44 cents had been originally acquired by his father S.R.Harrington (Late) by way of sale deed dated 21.05.1955 and registered as document No.1655/1965 with SRO, Tambaram. Ever since the date of acquirement, the same had been in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. In such circumstances, in the year 1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a notice through the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner, ULT, Tambaram in...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal, improper, unlawful, unconstitutional and arbitrary.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.10 of 2012 for offences under Sections 376, 506(i) r/w 109 IPC has been registered against the petitioners/Accused. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) r/w 34 and 109 IPC and the same was taken on file after committal in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioners/Accused have submitted that the accused persons and the defacto complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Sathish Kumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal against the judgment passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court at Dharmapuri in S.C.No.167 of 2014 dated 12-09-2015 by convicting him to undergo the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to set aside the same.) 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 12th day of September 2015 passed in S.C.No.167 of 2014 by the District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. 2. The contraction of the case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the son of the second and third accused. The first accused has given a false hope of marrying the prosecutrix viz.,Anu. On 10-06-2011, at about 6:00p.m., the first accused has directed the prosecutrix to come to his sugarcane field and both of them have had carnal copulation. On several occasions, both of them have continued their sexual relationship and consequently, the prosecutrix h...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Natarajan and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayers: W.A. No. 2572 of 2001:-Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.10.2001 made in W.P. No. 20286 of 1993. W.P. No. 2885 of 2011:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents ending with the order of first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 62, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives dated 24.6.2009 and the communication of the fourth respondent in Lr. No. RTI 28/2010 dated 22.12.2010 and quash the same in so far as the lands of the petitioners in Survey Nos. 62/1, 63, 57, 64, 52 and 53/1C situated in Nerkundram Village are concerned and forbear the respondents from in any manner depriving the petitioners of their above mentioned lands without due process of law including payment of compensation at prevailing market rate as on date.) Common judgment Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!D. Krishnamoorthy Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Revisions under Sections 397 r/w.401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, in C.A.Nos.3, 2 and 1 of 1998.) Common Order: 1. These criminal revision cases have been preferred against the concurrent judgments passed in Calendar Case Nos.10079, 10078 and 10077 of 1989 and in Criminal Appeal Nos.3, 2 and 1 of 1998 by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. 2. The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.10079 of 1989 is that during the relevant period, the accused has served as a Clerk Grade-II, in Scenic Department of Doordarshan Kendra, Madras. The accused has changed his name as D.Ambrose and married his colleague Ms.Arokia Mary. He started a business under the name and style of 'Infant Jesus Traders' and also opened an account in the State Bank of Mysore, K.K.Nagar Branch. On 20.01.1986 and 17.2.1986 in the name of 'Infant Jesus Traders', he submitted three bills to Doorda...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramajayam @ Appu Vs. The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayers: The Referred Trial is numbered under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. to go into the question of confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee in S.C.No.142 of 2013 on 21.1.2015. The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee in S.C.No.142 of 2013 dated 21.1.2015.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The Reference, R.T.No.1 of 2015 is made by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee, under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking confirmation of the capital punishment imposed upon K.Ramajayam @ Appu, the sole accused, by Judgment dated 21.1.2015 in S.C.No.142 of 2013. The accused has independently preferred Crl.A.No.110 of 2015, challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the Prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!P. Reegan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu Pakkirisamy, Son of Kunchu, aged about 65 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The facts obtaining in this case has been discussed in detail in the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by us, and therefore we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same in order to avoid unnecessary repetition. The order dated 30.11.2015 reads thus, "It is the case of the petitioner that his father Pakkirisamy, who is a convict prisoner has completed his term of sentence, despite which he has not been released from incarceration. For better appreciation of the petitioner's claim, it may be relevant to set out the factual matrix of the case. 2. Pakkirisiamy [A1], his son Annadurai [A2] and wife Rani [A3] were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagap...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil @ Tamilarasan Vs. State By The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in S.C.No.4 of 2008 dated 12.2.2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-1), Chennai.) 1. The conviction and sentence dated 12.3.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 2008 by the District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Chennai are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is an accused in a murder case. In the said murder case, the defacto complainant by name Sivakumar is one of the eye witnesses and with an intention to murder the defacto complainant, on 14.7.2006, at about 17.30 hours in Padavattaman Koil Street, near A.1 Beef Stall, Chindatripet, the accused has attacked the defacto complainant, by using a deadly weapon and thereby caused injuries. After occurrence, a complaint has been given and the same has been registered in Crime No.1399 of 2006. 3. On receipt of complaint, the Investigating Officer, v...
Tag this Judgment!Suganiya Vs. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Section 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the following detenues, viz., (1) Jeeva @ Jeevarathinam, S/o Krishnan [A1]; (2) Manimaran, S/o Munusamy [A2]; (3) Uthiram @ Uthirakumar, S/o Kuppan [A3]; (4) Anbazhagan, S/o Ranganathan [A4]; (5) Velayutham, S/o Elumalai [A5]; (6) Sethu @ Ilango, S/o Govindasamy [A9]; (7) Anbu, S/o Sittrampakkathan @ Krishnan [A15]; (8) Baskar, S/o Murugesan [A16]; (9) Balashankar, S/o Nagalingam [A17]; (10) Thirunavukkarasu, S/o Kaniappan [A16]; (11) Saravanan, S/o Koallapuri [A19]; (12) Vimal @ Vimalraj, S/o Somasundaram [A22]; (13) Anbarasu, S/o Murugesan [A23]; (14) Kumar @ Kuttikumar, S/o Ezhumalai [A25]; (16) Munisamy, S/o Krishnan [A27]; (17) Nagaraj @ Sappai Nagaraj, S/o Krishnan [A28] before this Court and set them at liberty.) Common Order: P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this batch of Habeas Corpus Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »