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.
Saranya Vs. State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Per ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 18.03.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No. 25 of 2016 in Special S.C.No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the District Judge/Mahila Court, Perambalur. 2. The seminal question that falls for determination in this case is "Can a criminal Court direct a prosecution witness and her child to subject themselves to DNA profiling along with the accused?" 3. Before venturing to answer this question, it is essential to narrate the factual matrix of this case. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 5. On the complaint lodged by one Prema, the All Women Police Station, Perambalur, registered a case in Cr.No. 7 of 2015 on 12.03.2015 under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC; Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity "the POCSO Act") and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against (1) Manikandan (2) Karuppayee [mother of Manika...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Motor Third Party Cell, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.02.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.2313 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) 1. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2313 of 2013 dated 24.2.2016, both the Insurance Company and the Claimant have brought these appeals questioning the quantum of compensation awarded and for enhancement of the compensation, respectively. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the Claimant and the Insurance Company in this order. 2. Learned counsel for the Claimant has submitted that on 14.3.2013 at about 12.00 hours, when the Claimant was riding a motorc...
Suresh @ Sathiyaraj Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment dated 06.08.2013 made in S.C.No.42 of 2012, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.42 of 2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Karur. The trial Court framed charges under Section 449, 302 and 394 r/w 397 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 06.08.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 449 of I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment under Section 302 of I.P.C and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years under Section 394 r/w 397 of I.P.C and to pay fi...
M/s. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Co., (P) Limited, R. Satheesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., as against the Judgment in C.C.No.45 of 2013 dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court Magisterial Level, Thiruvallur and set aside the same.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant. 2. Since this Court has held that the private service taken on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant was a sufficient one in Crl.O.P. No.4663 of 2016 and also, on behalf of the Respondent/Accused, there is no representation either in person or through Learned Counsel, this Court proceeds with the hearing of main Criminal Appeal, on merits. 3. At the outset, this Court points out that today, the Crl.O.P.No.4663 of 2016 [seeking 'Grant of Special Leave to prefer an Appeal'] was allowed by this Court for the reasons assigned therein. 4. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 29.01.2015 in C.C.No.45 of 2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., by its General Manager Perambalu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.NO.351 and 387 / 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai.) Common Judgment: The unfortunate accident that took place on 15.09.1999 at about 4 a.m. in Thiruthuraipoondi Muthupettai Road, the death occurred. The legal representatives of the deceased filed applications for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Pudukottai and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,99,120/- respectively towards the total compensation, against which, the Insurance Corporation preferred the present appeals on the ground that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, since the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. In view of the wrong application of the multiplier, the Tribunal has committ...
Govindan Vs. State: Rep. by the Inspector of Police Chennai Central Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.507 of 2006 dated 23.07.2008.) A-1 in S.C.No.507 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is the appellant. 2. Along with A-2, the appellant herein/A-1 was tried before the said Court and ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction (i) 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. Sentence 7 years R.I. and fine Rs.500/- each i/d 3 months S.I. They have paid the fine amount. 3. This Criminal appeal has been preferred by A-1. There is no appeal filed on behalf of A-2. Thus, this judgment is confined only to A-1 viz., Govindan. 4. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under: (i) On 25.10.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., when P.W.5 and is wife P.W.6 and one Mohammed Haji were travelling in the electric train bound to Beach station, while the train was moving near Washermenpet station, appellant/A-1 and A-2 (...
The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigul Vs. L ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.03.2006 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul in W.C.No.291 of 2004.) The accident took place on 12.09.2004 at about 8.45 a.m. and the victim filed an application for compensation before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Workmen's Compensation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.3,49,843/- towards total compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant. Against the said order granting compensation, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order on the ground that the Tractor met with an accident was carrying excess persons and further loaded with bricks, which is not permitted under the permit Rules. By loading the bricks for commercial use, the Tractor had violated...
Veerannan and Others Vs. Erammal @ Veerammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.159 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.159 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam. 2. The suit has been laid for permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows: The suit properties are Government Poramboke lands and the plaintiffs have encroached into the suit properties and enjoying the same by paying necessary charges to the Government by way of B memos and the defendants h...
K. Ganesan Vs. S. Manickam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2002 made in A.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000, made in O.S.No.339 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2002, passed in A.S.No.7 of 2001 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000, passed in O.S.No.339 of 1996 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below. The respondents are the defendants. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The respondents are the owners of the suit schedule property. They entered into an agreement of sale on 27.02.1991 with the appellant agreeing to s...
N. Krishnagiri Vs. M/s. 18 Steps Medias Private Limited, Rep. by its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 20.6.2014 made in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.) 1. Heard Mr.C.D.Sugumar, Learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.R.Kannan, Learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. 2. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2014 as against the judgment dated 20.6.2014 in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pollachi. 3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pollachi, while passing the impugned judgment in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012 (filed by the Appellant/Complainant), at para 14, had observed that there was no direct evidence to show that the Accused, who are residing at a different village/place, had got acquainted with the Appellant/Complainant and further, when there was no evidence as to at which place the money was given to the Accused and added further when the Appellant/Complainant...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »