Chennai Court October 2016 Judgments
Balakumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of Suganthi, aged about 27 years, wife of the petitioner from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4 before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that his wife Suganthi, aged bout 27 years, has been abducted by the respondents 3 and 4, who are her parents and kept in illegal custody by them. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that as arranged by the elders, his marriage with Suganthi was celebrated on 15.09.2016. It is further stated in the affidavit that on the same day of the marriage, the respondents 3 and 4 and their relatives came to the Marriage Hall, where the marriage was celebrated, abused the petitioner in filthy language and by force, abducted Ms.Sug...
Tag this Judgment!Sathish Kumar Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 dated 22.07.2015.) 1. The Appellant/Accused No.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 22.07.2015 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 (in Cr.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Ariyalur) passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. 2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur while passing the impugned judgment in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 on 22.07.2015 had come to a resultant conclusion that the Respondent/Prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant/A1 in respect of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012 (punishable under Section 8 of the Act) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period o...
Tag this Judgment!Chockkiah and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 17.03.2015, made in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2008, by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in Special S.C.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34, 506(ii) IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By judgment dated 17.03.2015, the trial Court acquitted all the four accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, convicted them under Sections 341, 506(ii) and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for l...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraman Vs. Senthil Kumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.929 of 2011 in O.S.No.73 of 2010, dated 16.4.2012, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul and to set aside the same.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.929 of 2011 in O.S.No.73 of 2010, dated 16.04.2012, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul 2. According to the Petitioner that the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul for recovery of money against the revision petitioner. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul Due to his illness, the revision petition was not able to appear before the Court and hence the suit was set ex...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ahamed Ibrahim Vs. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings letter (2g) No.85 dated 27.08.2013 and the consequential inter-se-seniority list circular issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Ma.Ne.1/25997/2010 dated 23.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Clarification Letter passed by the first respondent in his proceedings letter (2g) No.85 dated 27.08.2013 and the consequential issuance of inter-se- seniority list circular issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Ma.Ne.1/25997/2010, dated 23.09.2013. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 25.06.1993 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 19.11.2009 in the third respondent Corporation. He also stated that the contesting respondents 4 to 8 w...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mythily Vs. S. Balaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code as against the order dated 24.3.2011 made in Criminal M.P. No.2005 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.) This revision arose, at the instance of de facto complainant as against the dismissal of her complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2005 of 2011. 2. The respondent filed two cheque bouncing cases in C.C.Nos.372 and 373 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore as against the revision petitioner. Crl.O.P.Nos.11151 and 11152 of 2011 have been filed by the revision petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash these criminal proceedings. This Court had stayed all further proceedings in the said cases. 3. The revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the same Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore alleging that actually the money transaction was between her husband and...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.S. Muthuvel (Died) Vs. J.P. Thomas
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1997 made in A.S.No.177 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.03.1994, made in O.S.No.358 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1997 made in A.S.No.177 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.03.1994, made in O.S.No.358 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. The respondent is the defendant. 3. Facts of the case:- (i) The appellant filed suit in O.S.No.358 of 1993, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,840/- together with interest for the goods sold and d...
Tag this Judgment!C. Balakrishnan Vs. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Rep. By it's C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus caling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.67/CVIII/2007 dated 03.11.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to declare the petitioner's community certificate accordingly within the period that may stipulated by this Court.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 03.11.2015, in and by which, it has been unanimously concluded that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Kattunayakan Scheduled Tribe Community is found to be false. Therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee directed the District Collector, Madurai to initiate stringent action against the petitioner for obtaining false Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavel Vs. Arumbavur Town Panchayat Rep. by its Executive Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
T. Ravindran, J. 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2010 made in A.S. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Perambalur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2009 made in O.S. No. 147 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. 2. The suit has been laid for Permanent Injunction. 3. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows : The suit property belongs to the plaintiff ancestrally. The Survey No. 642/2 measures 9 cents and it originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Arumuga Padayachi and his Pangali, viz., Ponnusamy Padayachi ancestrally and in the partition between them, Ponnusamy Padayachi was allotted Western side 4 cents and Arumuga Padayachi was allotted Southern side 4 cents and accordingly, the plaintiff, after the demise of his father, is entitled to the suit property, now, subdivided as 642/4B Hectare 0.02.0 and UDR patta has been granted in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Prabakaran Vs. Union of India, Rep.by the Postmaster General, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent Tribunal pertaining to the order which is made in O.A.No.822 of 2012 dated 04.09.2015 and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-instate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the fourth respondent / Tribunal, in O.A.No.822 of 2012, dated 04.09.2015 and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-instate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner herein while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (GDS MD/MC), Perattur Branch, Ikkadu Sub Office, Kanchipuram, was served with a charge memo dated 18.07.2011. Four charges were framed against...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »