Chennai Court February 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.
Jothi Basu and Another Vs. The State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.225 of 2008 by the Hon'ble District Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam District dated 14.11.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 342 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Originally, including these appellants, there were four accused. One Manoharan and Stalin, who were arrayed as the accused 1 and 3, died before the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellants who were the accused 2 and 4 were re-arrayed as the accused 1 and 2 by the trial Court. Challenging the said conviction and sentence...
Mary Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register a criminal case against the accused based on the complaint dated 03.02.2016 preferred by the petitioner and to take action against the accused in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a criminal case against the accused based on the complaint dated 03.02.2016 preferred by the petitioner and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 03.02.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and l...
Angappan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register the case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 17.10.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 17.10.2015. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 17.10.2015, it is seen that there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the opposite party, in connection with a Government Poramboke Land. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party is trying to fence the land and when it was questioned, the opposite party has abused him by calling his caste name. The averments in the complaint do not inspire confidence of this Court for issuing a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the r...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. It may be necessary to state the bare facts that are required for deciding about the maintainability of this petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has registered a case in Crime Nos.34 and 37 of 2014, but did not conduct proper investigation and has perfunctorily closed the cases as mistake of fact. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for a direction to the State and Central Governments to take action against the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell for not properly conducting the investigation of the said two cases. Registry of this Court entertained certain doubts about the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence, the matter was posted before this Court for deciding the said issue. 3. Heard the Party-in-Person, who reiterated his stand by contending that such direction is permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. re...
Chellamuthu and Others Vs. The State rep. by The Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 15 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 27.7.2015 and instruct the respondents 16 to 19 to stop the proposed Thar Road laying in river comprising in Survey No.184, 185 and 186 and Chinnapillai Oodai Comprising in Survey No.188 and consequently ensure the river and Chinnapillai Oodai in the original position enable the water flow in order to storage the water in the check dam at Siruvachur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District.) 1. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 15 to consider the their representation dated 27.7.2015 and instruct the respondents 16 to 19 to stop the proposed Thar Road laying in river comprising in Survey No.184, 185 and 186 and Chinnapillai Oodai, Comprising in Survey No.188 and consequently ensure the river and Chin...
R. Selvakumar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015 dated 22.09.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal, is to an order, made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015, dated 22.09.2015, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court, has sustained the order, in Na.Ka.No.321/E/14, dated 03.09.2015, passed by the 4th respondent/Principal, Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District. 2. Brief facts, as deduced from the material on record, and the impugned order, are that the appellant was appointed as a Programmer, in the cadre of Lab Assistant, on 15.07.1996, by the 4th respondent. Pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission report, the post of Programmer, in the cadre of Lab Assistant, was re-designated as Assistant Programmer and the pay scale was fixed as Rs. 9300-34800+4200, vide order, dated 27.10.2010. Grade pay was later on, revised as Rs.4,400/- from Rs.4,200/-. In 1996, the appellant was given the selection grade, in the post...
Tecpro Systems Limited Vs. The Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to take any coercive or any other steps against the petitioner company herein, which is under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA), invoking the provisions of Income Tax (IT) Act 1961 pursuant to F.No.ACIT/Circle-76(1)/u/s 201(1)/(1A)/2015-16/TAN:DELTO3519F dated 20.01.2016 issued by the respondent to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the BIFR proceedings.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to take any coercive or any other steps against the petitioner company which is under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA), invoking the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the order da...
A.S. Athiyaman Vs. A.C. Ramasamy Gounder (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition (NPD) filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order, dated 02.07.2014 made in R.E.P.No.47 of 2001 in O.S.No.274 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri. 1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the third respondent / tenth defendant, challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, dated 02.07.2014. 2. The decree-holder / A.C.Ramasamy Gounder (deceased) has taken out an Execution Petition in R.E.P.No.47 of 2001 in O.S.No.274 of 1986. In the said Execution Petition, notice has been ordered to the respondents, returnable by 07.01.2002. The notes paper of the Executing Court, dated 07.01.2002, reads that the third and fourth respondents have been served and batta for fresh notice has to be paid for R-1 and R-2. Subsequently, nearly by ten months' time, the third respondent has filed counter, on 23.10.2002. The copy of the counter filed by the third respondent is also placed on record. 3. The de...
Hindu Nadar Educational Trust and Others Vs. Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal, is to an order, made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, dated 05.01.2016. 2. W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016. has been filed. for the following relief:- ''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/AA5/2015 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequentially approve the representatives nominated by the petitioner society through its representation dated 29.06.2015 as members of the school committee of Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai.'' 3. W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016, have been filed, for the following relief:- ''Prayer in W.M.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 : To pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents 1...
K.S. Eswaran Vs. Chairman/Secretary, Sriram Educational Trust and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court dated 02.09.2014 made in W.P.No.8575 of 2013.) M.Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant has filed the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 02.09.2014 in W.P.No.8575 of 2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orderon 02.09.2014 in W.P.No.8575 of 2013 (filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner), at paragraphs 4 and 5, had observed the following: 4. The first respondent has produced the Bye-laws of the first respondent Trust. The Bye-laws of the Board deals about the retirement and the same is extracted hereunder:- "Retirement The retirement age for the employees of the Trust and the institutions under its control shall be 58 years. In exceptional cases the Board of Trustees shall extend the period of service in extremely deserving cases by such period as the Trust Board may decide, but not beyond 60 years. The teaching staf...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »