Chennai Court December 2016 Judgments
Manivel Vs. The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 372[4] Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 29.09.2016 made in SC.No.26/2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandaram, [Fast Track Court], Tiruvarur.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Tiruvarur, has submitted the proceedings of the Sessions Case in SC.No.26/2015 on his file, to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the sole accused Mr.Manivel [hereinafter referred to as the accused ]. 2. The accused stood charged for the offences u/s.341, 366, 354, 376, 302 and 201 read with 302 IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women [Amended] Act, 2002. By judgment dated 29.09.2016, the Trial Court convicted him under sections 341, 376, 302 and 201 read with 302 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence u/s.341 IPC ; to undergo imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Through its Join ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005, made in A.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2004, made in O.S.No.31 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005, made in A.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2004, made in O.S.No.31 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. 2. The appellant is the 1st Defendant in O.S.No.31 of 2004, who succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the 1st Appellate Court. The 6th Respondent is the plaintiff. The Respondents 1 to 5 are the Defendants 2 to 6. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The 6th Respondent filed the suit for declaration that Sri Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Thirukoil, M...
Tag this Judgment!Sharanalayam, A Registered Public Charitable Trust and Licensed Adopti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P.No.31848 of 2016: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the communication through letter bearing Na.ka.No.5/16, dated 23.06.2016 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to issue birth certificate for Praveen now known as J.Sairam viz. the adoptive child of respondents 2 and 3 by incorporating the particulars in adoption Order dated 10.05.2016 made in Adoption O.P.No.375/2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. For better appreciation, facts involved in W.P.No.31848 of 2016 are stated below:- The petitioner Institution is a Licensed Adoption Agency recognized by the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Chenna...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., to allow this review petition and set aside the order dated 22.04.2016 in W.M.P.No.12533 of 2016 in W.P.No.10533 of 2016. M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned counsel for the Review Applicants informs this Court that he had addressed a letter dated 10.11.2016 to the Joint Registrar (Writs) of this Court, whereby and wherein, he had mentioned that he is not pressing the Review Application No.71 of 2016 and in regard to the same, he had already addressed a letter to the Registry dated 24.10.2016. The said letter dated 10.11.2016 of the Learned counsel for the Review Applicants is placed on record and the same is accepted by this Court. 2. In view of the aforesaid letter dated 10.11.2016 of the Learned counsel for the Review Applicants, this Review Application No.71 of 2016 in W.P.No.10533 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Na.Ka.No.B8/83344/2002, dated 23.07.2009, quash the same and further direct him to pay the compensation for the superstructure in survey No.513/2002, Narasingampatti Village to the petitioner as assessed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department in his proceedings letter No.293M/DB/JDO-5/F.224-A/2008, dated 08.04.2008 with interest applicable as per the National Highways Act.) 1. The land in Survey No.513/2002, Narasingampatti Village, Melur Taluk, belongs to the third respondent Panchayat. In the year 2005, the said land was subjected to acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant to the acquisition, the compensation for the land in Survey No.513/2002 was paid to the third respondent. Since the petitioner had put up the construction in the said land ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Duraisamy Thevar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Public (Political ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent Vide Na.Ka.No.Y4/9832/2015, dated 12.01.2016 to direct the respondents to issue freedom fighter pension to the petitioner at the earliest.) 1. The petitioner, a freedom fighter is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 12.01.2016 denying his claim for freedom fighter pension by the State Government. 2. The petitioner who is now aged about 95 years, has sought the disbursement of freedom fighter pension by contending that he voluntarily participated in the Quit India Movement; that he was declared as a proclaimed offender and that he was remained self concealed underground for more than six months for the period from 15.12.1942 to 14.06.1943. In support of his contention, the petitioner submitted two certificates issued by two freedom fighters, namely, A.M.Lakshm...
Tag this Judgment!Muniasamy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.562/2016/A4, dated 5.8.2016 and the consequential order passed in Na.Ka.No.561/2016/A4, dated 14.11.2016 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and also directing the respondent to receive increased monthly rent at the rate of 15% in addition to the original rate of rent paid by the Petitioner from July 2016.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.8.2016 and the consequential order dated 14.11.2016 fixing the lease/rent and consequentially demanding arrears from the Petitioner. 2. Mr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. According to the Petitioner, such fixation is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. Mr.S.Man...
Tag this Judgment!Ramar Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,-cum-Inspector Gener ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings K:.K:.vz;.2120/ vz.5/09, dated 11.12.2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to take petitioner appeal on file by condoning the delay in filing he same and pass orders on merits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. When the petitioner had presented a document for registration before the third respondent, the same was found by the authorities to be undervalued and kept as pending document No.1007/95. It is the case of the petitioner that though the document was received by the authorities in the year 1995, they had chosen to pass an order on 30.06.2004, whereby the market value was estimated at Rs.1,59,053/-and the stamp deficit was deduced at Rs.19,090/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!T.K.S. Elangovan and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the appointments made by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016, appointing respondents 4 to 14 as Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are illegal, ab initio void and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Constitutional provisions and, therefore, consequently to hold that respondents 4 to 14 have no authority to hold the posts of Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and consequently to declare the post as vacant. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the appointment of respondents 3 to 13 as Members of the TNPSC made in G.O.(Ms.) (3) No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016 issued by the first respondent as illegal and against Constitutional manda...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-22-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.158 of 2013 dated 29.10.2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.158 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The trial court framed charges under Sections 294 (b) and 302 of I.P.C against this Appellant/ Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 29.10.2015 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six months, under Section 294 (b) has not been proved against accused. 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 PW-9 Jeya is residing at Chidambaram, has 4 houses ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »