Chennai Court October 2016 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.
Navamani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Home Secretary, Secretari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to withdraw the case in Crime No.155 of 2007 on the file of the respondent No.3 and entrust the same to the respondent No.4, investigation of the case by a competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The writ petitioner has filed this writ petition for investigation of the murder of her son by a Competent Officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 2. That on 20.10.2007, the writ petitioner's son was murdered at Valliyoor Market. The Writ Petitioner suspected that one Ayyapillai and his henchmen Isairaja, Ruban, Manickam and Kannadi Manickam have attacked her son Udayasankar with deadly weapons and murdered him. 3. It is also informed that there was another complaint by the said Ayyapillai as the counterblast to her complaint. On 21.10.2007, the peti...
Blue Star Estate Private Limited and Others Vs. ----
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation.) 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2015. The scheme of amalgamation (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure D to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.190 of 2016 is the 1st transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.191 of 2016 is the 2nd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.192 of 2016 is the 3rd transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.193 of 2016 is the 4th transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.194 of 2016 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there are no secured creditors in so far as both the transferor companies and the transferee company are concerned. The certificates of the Chartered Accountan...
Rajan @ Colony Rajan Vs. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent in P.D.No.30/2016, dated 31.05.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Rajan @ Colony Rajan, Son of Velappan, aged about 35 years detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu viz., Mr.Rajan @ Colony Rajan, S/o.Velappan, aged about 35 years. He has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 31.05.2016, under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as Goonda . Challenging the same, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3.Th...
R. Anandapadmanaban Vs. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.6052 of 2014 dated 21.06.2016 and quash the same.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st respondent herein, in Crl.M.P.No.6052 of 2014, dated 21.06.2016 and to quash the same. 2. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.,/ respondent No.2 is a Financial Institution. Respondents 3 to 5 / borrowers have approached the respondent No.2 for grant of a loan of Rs.3,08,91,574/- against equitable mortgage. A loan agreement dated 30.03.2012 was entered into between the respondents 3 to 5 and the respondent No.2. The loan was secured by the mortgage of the property bearing Old Door No.18, New Door No.2, Baskara Sastri Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodamb...
K. Manivel Vs. State the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul, in S.S.C.No.2 of 2014 dated 06.08.2015.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.S.C.No.2 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. He stood charged for offences under Section 376(2)(1) IPC read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act). By judgment dated 06.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.2 is a girl child aged 14 years and 5 months. She is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3. They ...
R. Sekaran Vs. N. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal of the Respondent/Accused passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, The Nilgiris District in C.C.No.15 of 2003 dated 20.11.2009.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, The Nilgiris District in C.C.No.15 of 2003 dated 20.11.2009. 2. Heard the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused. 3. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant submits that the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.15 of 2003 dated 20.11.2009 passed by the trial Court is manifestly erroneous, illegal, incompetent and against the well settled principles of Law. 4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to apply its mind to the aspect that the Respondent/Accused had admitted the...
The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.977 of 2015 and quash the same.) N. Authinathan, J 1. This Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.977 of 2015 and quash the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The first respondent joined the petitioners' Department as Group D staff in the year 1988. The date of birth of the first respondent was recorded as 01.07.1958 in his Service Register on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). He made a representation dated 21.10.2014 to his department for alteration of his date of birth from 01.07.1958 to 31.01.1960. Thereafter, he sent a reminders dated 24.10.2014 and 16.01.2015 for alteration of date of birth. The said date of...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
M. Venugopal. J, 1. Heard Ms.S.Karthika, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focused the instant Crl.M.P.No.10867 of 2016 for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 145 days in preferring the Crl.A.SR.43807 of 2016. Admittedly, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the present Appeal as an aggrieved person, as against the judgment in S.C.No.223 of 2014 dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused was convicted in respect of an offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and further, he was imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of the said fine amount, he was further directed to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 3. The reason for the delay ...
Mayandi and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Ins ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.18 of 2013, dated 18.08.2014.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.152 of 2012 on the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The trial court framed charges under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused 1 and 3. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 17.12.2014 convicted the appellants/accused 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and further convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 341 of I P C to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against them, the present appeal has been filed by...
A. Sankariah Vs. V. Ravichandran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010 made in A.S.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.200 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010 made in A.S.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgement and decree dated 14.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.200 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff / appellant for specific performance. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is as follows: The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the third defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have executed a sale agreement in f...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »