Chennai Court December 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.
K. Senthil Kumar Vs. State by The Asst.Commissioner of Police (Law and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.372 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in SC No.80 of 2011 dated 12.02.2016) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the second respondent herein, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.80 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, from the charges under Secs.302 and 201 IPC. 2. (a) The appellant belongs to Masinayakkan pattu Vettikadu in Salem District. The deceased Palaniammal was his mother. She was also residing along with the appellant. They were all coolies by profession. The second respondent/accused S. Vaitheeswaran was also a resident of the same village. P.W.1 and the deceased used to go for coolie work under the respondent/accused. A sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was due from the accused to P.W.1 and his mother in this regard. They were demanding the accused to pay the same, but he was evasive. (b) On 19.04.2010 around 6....
Elumalai Vs. Kanthamani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order of remand made by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Gingee dated 29.06.2009 made in A.S. No. 30 of 2006 reversing the decree/judgment in O.S. No. 551 of 1998 dated 30.06.2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee. 2. The defendant in O.S. No. 551 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee/the respondent in A.S. No. 30 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Gingee, has come forward with this miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the order of the First Appellate Court remanding the matter back to the Trial Court. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for narrative convenience. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession with mesne profits. She would allege in her plaint that the suit property originally belonged to her husband Kuppusamygounder, that he had obtained the same partly by inheritanc...
K.R. Sivanandam and Others Vs. K.S. Subbulakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 made in A.S.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 made in O.S.No.36 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode.) 1. Defendants 6 to 8 and 10 to 16 are the appellants before this Court. In the suit for partition, the trial Court has dismissed the plea of the plaintiffs, which was reversed by the first appellate Court by passing the preliminary decree holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for share in thes suit property. 2. In this Second Appeal, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the plaint. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal is as follows:- One K.M.Ramasamy gounder had two wives viz., Kamatchiammal (first wife) and Nagarathina ammal (second wife). The 1st plaintiff is the son of the 2nd wife Nagarathina ammal. D...
Shanmugam Vs. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 made in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2009 made in O.S.No.39 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif -Cum - Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 made in A.S.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the principal Sub Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2009 made in O.S.No.39 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.04.2005 for his urgent family and agriculture expenses and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the s...
J. Antonyraj Vs. The District collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue suitable directions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to remove the obstructions and encroachments in Survey No. 112 and 128 situated at Tuticorin, Loorthammalpuram, Tuticorin District based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2014 which was posted on RPAD on 15.12.2014.) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue suitable directions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove the obstructions and encroachments in Survey Nos. 112 and 128 situated at Tuticorin Loorthammalpuram, Tuticorin District, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 25.11.2014. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 5 and 6 have made some encroachments in a road and therefore, such encroachments have to be removed by the official respondents. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the r...
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Coimbatore V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award and decree dated 05.01.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.) R. Subbiah, J. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the compensation of Rs.15,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2009, dated 05.01.2011, as against claim of Rs.25,00,000/- made by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are father and sisters respectively of the deceased Sivakumar. 2. Since the present appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to deal with the other aspects of the award. 3. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants in respect of quantum of compensation before the Tribunal that the deceased Sivakumar was working as a Manager in a Mobile Store Services Private Limited ...
Beer Mohammed and Others Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Din ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2009 at about 06.30 a.m. in K.K.Nagar, Sundaram Theater, Madurai, a van bearing Registration No.TN 59 W 4722 was intercepted and on inspection of the vehicle, it was found out with 45 chippams of P.D.S Rice (each 50 kgs.) and the petitioners/A1 and A2 were arrested on the spot along with P.D.S rice on their confession statements, the 3rd petitioner/A3 was arrayed as an accused. 3. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the certificate issued by the quality insp...
Moorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 22.10.2016 made in S.C.No.38 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Sessions Mahila Judge, Salem in convicting the Appellant/ Accused under Section 417 I.P.C. sentencing to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay with fine of Rs.50,000/-.) The Appellant/Accused has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an aggrieved person) being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 22.10.2016 in S.C.No.38 of 2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Mahila Judge, Salem. Preface: 2. The Learned Sessions Mahila Judge, Salem, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.38 of 2014 on 22.10.2016, at paragraph 39 and 40, had observed the following: 39. The accused is already charged u/s.376 and 450 of IPC. But this court concluded he has committed the offence u/s.417 of IPC. The facts are proved which reduce its to a minor offence against the accused person. Hence this court concluded that the accus...
M. Perumal and Others Vs. Vijayakumari and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2011 made in I.A.No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District.) 1. The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.182 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 dated 31.10.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration and for permanent injunction. After filing the written statement, this petitioners/defendants have filed the present I.A.No.182 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 (1) of CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground of no cause of action. 3. The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the first defendant s father Munusamy Gounder, who was the sole and absolute owner of the property of Nanja land comprised i...
T. Boominathan Vs. The Tashildar, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the Application, dated 15.10.2016, sent by the petitioner to the respondent and issue patta in favour of the petitioner for the piece and parcel of land in S.No.74, 75 and 78 bearing plot No.A-16/5, situated at Thilai nagar 1st cross street, Trichy.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to consider his application, dated 15.10.2016, wherein and whereby he wants issuance of patta in his name for the land referred to in this writ petition. 2. Needless to say that it is for the respondent to consider the said request on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders also by hearing rival claimants, if any. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of only by directing the respondent to consider the representation of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »