Chennai Court November 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.
Saravanan and Others Vs. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiru ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.03.2015, made in S.C.No.45 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD)No.93 of 2015 are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.54 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli District. There was yet another accused by name, Sudha, who was arrayed as Accused No.5 in the case. The trial court framed as many as five charges against all the five accused, as detailed below: Accused Nos.Charge U/s.Accused Nos.1and 2U/s.120-B IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.364 IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.302 IPCAccused Nos.1 to 4U/s.201 IPCAccused No.5U/s.201 IPCAfter trial, the trial court, by judgment dated 30.03.2015, convicted the appellants/accused 1 to 4 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fi...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Tiruchengode, Namakkal District V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2005, dated 31.08.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur.) 1. It is a case of death caused in the accident took place on 11.06.2004 around 05.45p.m., 2km east to Kilakku Mettu Puthur of Jegathabai road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2005. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- as compensation. 2. Challenging the same, the appellant - New India Assurance Company Ltd., preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and further the driver of the vehicle, which met with the accident covered under the insurance policy of the appellant Insurance Company, had not commi...
The Secretary to Government School Education Department, Fort St. Geor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 31.10.2014 in W.P.No.24851 of 2013 passed by the learned single Judge.) G. Ramesh, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the State, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P.No.24851 of 2013, dated 31.10.2014, quashing Government Lr.No.7683/U2/2000-31, dated 07.03.2007 and directed the first Appellant to regularize the service of the first Respondent herein from the date of his appointment, i.e., from 01.11.1980 as Watchman, and to grant him time scale of pay applicable to the post of Watchman with all monetary benefits. 2. The first Respondent herein was appointed as a Watchman by the second respondent Teacher Training Institute at Cuddalore, by an order dated 30.10.1980 with effect from 01.11.1980 subject to the approval of the Inspectress of Girls Schools, Cuddalore. The said appointment was approved by the Inspectress of Girls Schools, Cuddalore, on 04.12.1981. The In...
Mohamed Abdul Kather Vs. The Proprietor, Amala Gas Centre and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the District Consumer Forum, Dindigul to dispose of C.C.No.46 of 2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 1. The petitioner has filed the present C.R.P under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a limited prayer to dispose of C.C.No.46 of 2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid C.C.No.46 of 2012 has been filed in the year 2012 and the said case is still pending before the District Consumer Forum, Dindigul, without any progress. The Petitioner being a senior citizen, aged 65 years, is facing enquiry for the past four years. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present C.R.P to dispose of the above C.R.P within a reasonable time, fixed by this Court. 3. Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 65 years, in the interest of justice...
The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue suitable orders to exempt / regulate the exchange demonetized currency notes of the value Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- lying in the hands of Subordinate Courts of Tamil Nadu as cash properties involved in cases in trial / enquiries / investigation, after the 31st December 2016 or 31st March 2017.) 1. After notification issued by the Union of India, demonetizing Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- currency notes, this Court received report from the District Judges of the Districts falling with the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. It is reported that the demonetized Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- currency notes in huge quantities are now in the custody of the Courts as case properties. It was also reported that it may take months or even years for these cases to get disposed of and then, for the Courts to pass orders disposing of these currency notes. For any reaso...
Selvaraj and Another Vs. The Secretary to Government, Adidravidar and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Common Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the circular of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.E4/11027/15-1 dated nil signed on 15.05.2015 and quash the same consequently directing the second respondent to act in accordance with the Government Standing Order N.18 dated 13.02.2015 of the first respondent.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the circular issued by the second respondent, dated 15.05.2015, the present writ petitions have been filed. 2. According to the petitioners, they are registered contractors carrying out the works entrusted by the Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. Earlier the Junior Engineer of Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is empowered to give technical sanction for the work upto Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the difficulty faced, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.18, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 13.02.2015, there...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
1. Heard Mr.L.Rajasekar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused and Ms.M.F.Shabana, Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, there is a delay of 144 days in projecting the present Criminal Appeal in Sr.No.50230 of 2016 as against the Judgment dated 04.05.2016 in S.C.No.182 of 2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. 3. The reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant for the delay of 144 days in question is that he had not remitted the fine amount and was confined to Central Prison, Vellore from the date of passing of the Judgment and because of his family circumstances and financial constrains, he could not prefer the Appeal in time. Moreover, he is a flower vendor in the Village and has three school going children, besides having aged parents. 4. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant projects an argument that for t...
T.B. Venkatachari and Others Vs. R. Santhana Lakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside and reverse the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.107 of 2003, dated 09.03.2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur allowing the appeal granting relief of Pre-emption and remanding the same by set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in O.S.No.28 of 1994, dated 03.12.2002 and allow the second appeal, thereby dismissing the suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam with costs through out.) The third defendant and the legal representatives of the 7th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The first respondent in this Second Appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 for declaration of plaintiff's preemptive rights over the suit property and for consequential relief of possession of the suit prop...
M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Trichy Vs. Sumathi an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.2587 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli.) 1. It is a case of a fatal accident took place on 14.06.2000 around 0.30 hours early morning on Trichy-Chennai NH road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.2587 of 2001 and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a sum of Rs.8,14,880/- as total compensation. 2. Challenging the same, the appellant Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and further on the ground of liability. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has granted...
Moorthi @ Ramanathan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Meemis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 27.04.2015, made in S.C.No.120 of 2013, by the learned Additional District and Sessions cum Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.120 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions cum Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). By judgment dated 27.04.2015, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC for 2 counts and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case were one Mrs.Tamilselvi and Mr.Arjunan (hereinafte...