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.
P. Balamurugan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 28.08.2014, made in S.C.No.88 of 2012, by the Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.88 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 28.08.2014, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief i...
S.V. Sankar Vs. Motcha Mary
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2011 made in A.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Sivagangai reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 made in O.S.No.72 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale deed dated 11.12.2003 in respect of the suit property namely an extent of 2.62 acres in Survey No.370/3 in Kadambavanam Village, Surakudi Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk and Registration District. 3. The case of the plaintiff / appellant in the suit are as follows: 3.1. The suit property originally belonged to the defendant and it was in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs.2,300/- per cent and executed a sale agreement i...
Gnana Kumari Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the 50% of prior service of regularization as qualified service along with regular service of petitioner's husband for grant of enhanced family pension at the rate of 50% last pay drawn and to refix the pension on the basis of total service rendered by her husband, revised pension, arrears, pensionary and other monetary benefits accrued thereon to the petitioner from the date of family pension within a short dated that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count the 50% of prior service as qualified service along with regular service of the petitioner's husband for grant of enhanced family pension at the rate of 50% last pay drawn and to refix the pension on the basis of total service rendered by her husband and to direct the respondents to pay re...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Palaniappa Gounder an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.390 of 2002 dated 20.04.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Palani.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.390 of 2002, dated 20.04.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Palani. 2. It is the case of an unfortunate fatal accident took place on 02.05.2002, at 02.15 a.m, near Karur-Dindigul road and the death occurred on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application in MCOP.No.390 of 2002, before the III Additional Sub Court, Trichy, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.3,82,000/- as total compensation with interest at 6% per annum. The appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal, challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the quantum of compensation fixed by t...
Umanath Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Trichy District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to allow the Appeal and acquit the appellant by set aside the judgment dated 20.12.2012 in S.C.No.163/2012 passed by the learned Special and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.163/2012 on the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 20.12.2012 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 Months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Umanath is the husband of the deceased Malar and their Marriage was a love marriage. Out of their marriage, they had two ...
Indra Ganesan Educational and Charitable Trust rep.by its Chairman Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings AXISB/SOUTH/SRC/10-11/103 dated 25.10.2010 and consequential order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings AXISB/SOUTH/SRC/10-11/160 dated 24.11.2010 and quash the same, and direct the respondent Bank to execute Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner free from any encumbrance including clearance of Sale Tax Rs. 1,19,73,498/- in respect of the property bearing Survey field No.378/2 and 378/3 measuring an extent of 2 acres and 12.75 cents including the plant and machineries situated in K.Kallukudi village, Trichy Taluk and District. ) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner is an Educational and Charitable Trust and the Chairman of the Trust has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, stating among other things, that the Axis Bank respondents 3 ...
M/s. Shree Sakthi Modern Rice and Oil Mill, Partnership Firm, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., as against the order of acquittal made in S.T.C.NO.147 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Fast Track Court No.2, Erode dated 27.05.2015.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 27.05.2015 in S.T.C.No.147 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court No.2), Erode. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Erode, while passing the impugned order on 27.05.2015 in S.T.C.No.147 of 2012 (filed by the Appellant/Complainant) at paragraph 17, had, inter alia, observed that '... further, Ex.P.1 Case Cheque was not to be presumed to be one given in favour of the Appellant/Complainant and also the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not be presumed in his favour based on the circumstance of the case and since the Appellant/Complainant's side had failed to ...
A. Rekha Vs. S. Ananth
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-14-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer HMOP NO.24 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee to the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and conduct the joint trial along with HMOP No.144 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, which is filed by the petitioner.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filedfor transfer of H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2016 from the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, to the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2014 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Nagercoil. The contention of the petitioner is that due to strained relationship between the parties, they are living separately. Now, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Nagercoil and she is unemployed. Henc...
T. Thirumathi Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the land in No.17/36, Thiruvallur Colony, Kottur, Malayandipattinam, Kottur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District without following the due process of law under any statute in force.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the land in No.17/36, Thiruvallur Colony, Kottur, Malayandipattinam, Kottur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District without following the due process of law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the land at No.17/36 at the above said address initially belonged to the petitioner's mother and subsequently, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment. According to the petitioner, they had put up a small hut out of mud and h...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2016
1. The applicant is a Member of the first respondent. The suit has been laid challenging the order of suspension passed in exercise of the power under Article 13 (iv) of the bye laws of the Club against the applicant pending enquiry. Seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent/first defendant from giving effect to the said order of suspension, this application has been filed. 2. The applicant is not a paragon of virtue. His history qua with the first respondent is chequered. There are occasions, in which, the applicant was found guilty, resulting in action. This was between the period starting from the year 2005 to 2013. However, the applicant was allowed to continue as a Member. 3. When the election was proposed for the year 2016, the applicant made a complaint against the second respondent on two grounds, qua the qualification. The first is with respect to the conviction suffered and the second being the age barrier having been crossed. On receipt of the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »