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.
Velmurugan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 04.02.2015, made in S.C.No.194 of 2010, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.194 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 04.02.2015, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under the Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 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 was one Mr.Murugan. PW1 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased had a wife by name Rani. But, due to some matrimonial dispute, they were living separately. Later on, the deceased had ...
Trust Kuduva Pillaiyar Karuppanasamy Kovil, Rep. by its Trustee M. Man ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the respondent in his proceedings dated Nil. in tax Assessment No.69874 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, seeking to quash the Tax Assessment No.69874, as illegal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel who took notice for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he is an administrator of Pillaiyar Temple and Karuppanasami Temple and Peedam of Seelakari Amman Temple, which belongs to Karuppana Pillai, Son of Krishnapillai and other Pangalikal trust. The respondent issued impugned notice in Tax assessment No.69874, calling upon the Trust to pay a sum of Rs.2,26,998/-. When there is a dispute between the persons ...
N. Sengottaiyan and Another Vs. Shanmughavadivu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 07.12.2010 made in I.A.No.295 of 2007 in O.S.No.121 of 2000, on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani.) 1. The defendants 2 and 3 are the petitioners before this Court. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is daughter and the second plaintiff is wife of the first defendant viz., S.N.Natarajan. The suit schedule of properties was inherited as per the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 as partitioned between the first plaintiff and the first defendant and the said property is in ancestral property. As per the above partition deed dated 09.02.1987, half of the suit schedule of property belongs to the first plaintiff and the other half of the property belongs to the first defendant. Due to the continuous drunken stage of the first defendant and to continuous request of the second plaintiff, the second plaintiff left the first defendant with the first ...
S. Ganapathy Vs. P. Ganapathy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.1998, made in O.S.No.406 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, as reversed in A.S.No.35 of 1999, dated 19.06.2000, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2000, made in A.S.No.35 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.10.1998, made in O.S.No.406 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant is the defendant, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.406 of 1996 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, for recovery of money, based on the promissory note, dated 21.06.1992. (ii) According to the respondent, th...
Sasikumar and Others Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Manikan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 20.02.2015, made in S.C.No.77 of 2014, on the file of the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.305 of 2015 and the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.281 of 2015 are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.77 of 2014, on the file of the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District. The Trial Court framed as many as five charges against the accused, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11 to 3120-B IPC21364 IPC31 to 3302 IPC41 to 3392 r/w 397 IPC51 to 3201 IPC 2.By Judgment dated 20.02.2015, the Trial Court acquitted all the three accused from the charge under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also the first accused from the charge under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, howeve...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.R.Anbukarasu, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court with a delay of 305 days, being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 27.10.2015 in S.C.No.106 of 2012 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant, the Petitioner is very poor and working as Painter on daily wage basis and in the present case, he was convicted by the trial Court and accordingly, he was lodged in Jail. Furthermore, he was not in a position to raise sufficient funds to engage a counsel to prefer an 'Appeal' against the Judgment of the trial Court, since no family members helped him in this regard. Also, since he was in Jail, he was not in a position to contact his counsel to file the present Criminal Appeal in time...
Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Chennai Division, Chennai and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.1791 of 2013 including the Order dated 15.02.2016 and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made in O.A.No.1791 of 2013 dated 15.02.2016, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has directed the writ petitioners to provide a just and reasonable opportunity to Mr.V.Sriramulu, the 2nd respondent herein, to join the post-Khalasi in Mechanical Department, within a time frame and in so far as the period between 18.10.2002 to 20.06.2003, the tribunal has excluded the said period for counting of his service. As regards the period from 20.06.2003, till the 2nd respondent joins the post of Khalasi in Mechanical Department, the tribunal directed the disciplinary authority to apply his mind and pass a speaking order, after giving a personal hearing to the 2nd ...
K. Sampath (died) and Others Vs. Jayaraman s/o. Late Ekambar Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
C.T. Selvam, J. 1. This revision arises against the order of learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, passed in I.A.No.697 of 2014 in O.S.No.330 of 2005 on 18.01.2016. 2. Respondent has preferred O.S.No.330 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, seeking declaration of title to property and permanent injunction against interference with possession and enjoyment. Respondent moved I.A.No.697 of 2014 in O.S.No.330 of 2005 towards amending the plaint. Under order dated 18.01.2016, Court below allowed such application giving rise to the preference of this revision by petitioners/defendants. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the affidavit in support of I.A. No. 697 of 2014 in O.S.No. 330 of 2005, respondent/plaintiff merely had informed that certain extents of the suit property had been acquired for formation of a National Highway and therefore, it was necessary to ...
M. Sivaram Vs. A.M. Gopalan Chairman and Managing Director, M/s. Sree ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 31.08.2009 made in O.P.No.262 of 2007, on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.) 1. The petitioner in O.P.No.262 of 2007 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that during the month of December 2001, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as unsecured loan for the business need from the respondents and at that time of sanctioning the loan, the respondents have obtained signature in various blank papers and also blank cheques without security. It is further stated that in spite of the major set back in the business, the petitioner has fully repaid the principal amount of Rs.50,00,000/- borrowed from the respondents and the said repayment was made through the cheques and demand draft and to that effect the petitioner has also having all the statement of accounts for repayment of the same. 3. Thus being the ca...
P. Azhagar Samy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected in Memo No.40909/B2/2009, dated 13.11.2009 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as instructor on completion of Diploma qualification with effect from 1982, as per the G.O.Ms.No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988 and give consequential promotion as Associate Lecturer and Senior Lecturer, as given to other based on order passed by this Court in W.A.No.261 of 2008 dated 8.4.2000 and also G.O.Ms.No.89 Higher Education Department, dated 31.03.2009 and fix the petitioners pay on par with juniors and pay arrears.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Memo No.40909/B2/2009, dated 13.11.2009 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »