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.
Kumar @ Pullikumar and Others Vs. The State represented by the Inspect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw and transfer the Sessions Case in S.C. No.320 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur Division at Poonamallee to some other Sessions Court to secure the ends of justice.) 1. The facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Original Petition are that one Satish Babu was murdered on 19.09.2010, in connection with which, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.712 of 2010 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report against 8 accused and the case is now pending trial in S.C. No.320 of 2012 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. Trial commenced after framing of charges. On 13.08.2014, the prosecution examined Raj @ Vimal Raj-P.W.1, Sridhar-P.W.2, Karthik-P.W.3, Surender-P.W.4 and Udaya Raj @ Udaya-P.W.5 and their cross was deferred on application. On 24.11.2014, the accused have file...
Sathish Kumar Vs. Latha and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the C.M.P.No.418 of 2015 in M.C.No.15 of 2011 by order dated 01.06.2016 on the file of the Learned Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the order dated 01.06.2016.) 1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District, in C.M.P.No.418 of 2015 and in M.C.No.15 of 2011 by order dated 01.06.2016, dismissing the condone delay petition filed against the ex-parte order passed in MC.No.15/2011 dated 04.10.2011. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Vellore, Vellore District in C.M.P.No.418 of 2015 in M.C.No.15 of 2011, dated 01.06.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, the present petitioner filed an application to condone the delay of 1216 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte or...
P. Saravanarajan Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Dep ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records Na.Ka.3956/A5/2016 dated 24.08.2016 on the file of the 4th Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, ultravires and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the Respondents to give approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the 5th Respondent School from his date of appointment i.e., 01.07.2016, within time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the fourth respondent dated 24.08.2016 passed in Na.Ka.3956/A5/2016, by which, the fourth respondent has returned the proposal, on the ground that the fifth respondent school has not obtained prior permission from the second respondent. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the 5th res...
M/s. D. Thimmeswara Rao and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer in W.P.No.27499 of 2016: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent culminating in the impugned order dated 01.04.2016, issued from File No.R-165-CHA and quashing the same, direct the respondent to consider the application for renewal of the licence granted to the petitioner firm and grant licence, if otherwise found in order.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Raj Kumar Jhabakh learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondent, and with consent on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. In W.P.No.27499 of 2016, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 01.04.2016, rejecting their application for renewal of Customs Broker Licence under Regulation 7(1) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulation 2013, (CBLR). 3. In W.P.No.27500 of 2016, the pe...
Sundarraj @ Raja Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Kallid ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction, dated 04.08.2015, made in S.C.No.375 of 2011, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) S. Nagamuthu, j 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.375 of 2011, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 04.08.2015, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- Section of LawSentenceFine amount294(b)IPCTo undergo simpleimprisonment for one week.No fine.506(ii) IPCTo undergo simpleimprisonment for six months.No fine.302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment forlife.Rs.1,000/- in default toundergo simple imprisonment for three months. However, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The senten...
M. Silamban Vs. The State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to all this criminal appeal and set aside the judgment in S.C.No.37 of 2010, dated 26.04.2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.) B. Gokuldas, J. 1. The appellant herein, who was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.37 of 2010, for charges under Section 376 r/w Section 511 and 302 IPC, was found guilty vide judgment, dated 26.04.2013, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and life imprisonment respectively, and the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the sole accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 2. The case against the accused/appellant is that, on 13.01.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., when the deceased/Valli was taking bath in Poochiyenthal Kanmoi, the accused/Silamban went there with an intention to rape her. When he attempted so and the deceased ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.K.Prabhu, Learned for the Petitioner/Appellant; Mr.R.T.L.Chandar, Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A2 and Mr.B.Ramesh Babu, Learned Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) for the 3rd Respondent/Complainant. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. 2. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Victim (P.W.6), the copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.123/2010 dated 28.09.2015 was received on 16.10.2015 by the Petitioner and preferred an Appeal on 22.07.2016 with a delay of 228 days. 3. The reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant for the delay of 228 days is that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Community and also an uneducated person. Furthermore, she has no knowledge about the relief that she can obtain from this Court by means of an Appeal. Moreover, it is projected on the side of the Petitioner that the Petitioner along with her family had spent a considerable long time to look after other legal formalities of their 'Release f...
Selvaraj Vs. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orders dated 31.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.221 of 2010 in O.S.No.328 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.) 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 31.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.221 of 2010 in O.S.No.328 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.328 of 2000 and the suit was filed for permanent injunction. The suit was filed in the year 2000 and after a lapse of ten years, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.221 of 2010 seeking to amend the plaint schedule property. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the plaint schedule property, it was mistakenly stated as Eastern side of the property instead of Western side . It is further stated that the ...
S. Kartheeswaran Vs. The Director of Environment, Convener, Coastal Re ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2015 and take appropriate action in accordance with law and restrain the Respondents 4 and 5 from constructing any super structure in S.F.No.214/1, Thiruchendur having an extent of 0.20.0 hectare, T.P.Salai, Thiruchendur, Thiruchendur Taluk without C.R.Z. permission.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner s representation dated 30.01.2015 and take appropriate action in accordance with law and restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from constructing any super structure in S.F.No.214/1, Tiruchendur having an extent of 0.20.0 hectare, T.P. Salai, Tiruchendur without C.R.Z permission. 2. This public interest litigation writ petition is filed by one S.Kartheshwaran of Pallakuruchi Village, Sathanku...
SBI Global Factors Limited (Formerly known as M/s. Global Trade Financ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying (a) to wind up the respondent company, namely, M/s.R.K.R.Gold Private Limited, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ; (b) to appoint an Official Liquidator to take charge of the assets and liability of the respondent company M/s.R.K.R.Gold Private Limited ; and (c) to pay the cost of the winding up proceedings.) 1. This is a Company Petition preferred under Sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as "1956 Act"). PREFATORY FACTS: 2. It is averred that the petitioner is a subsidiary of the State Bank of India, which, to begin with was incorporated and registered under the 1956 Act, under the name and style: Global Trade Finance Limited. 2.2 It is averred that the petitioner, stood amalgamated with SBI Factors and Commercial Services Private Limited upon a Scheme being sanctioned by the Bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »