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.
Balu Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment dated 14.09.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 by the Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli.) A.Selvam, J 1. The conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 by the Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that due to money transaction the accused has had animosity with the deceased by name Abdul Majith. On 12.12.2008 at about 06.00 p.m. under the guise of getting employment to the deceased, the accused has taken him from his house and subsequently the accused has murdered him in a graveyard. After occurrence, one Gobalakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.805 of 2008. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigat...
Express Exclusive Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs. The Inspector General of Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the receipt dated 07.10.2015 executed by the third respondent (document No.P201500168) and the memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of The Union Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Broadway, Chennai dated 19.10.2015 (document No.P201500176) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for issuance of a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the receipt dated 07.10.2015 executed by the third respondent (document No.P201500168) and the memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of TheUnion Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Broadway, Chennai dated 19.10.2015 (document No.P201500176). 2. The facts which led to the institution of the above writ petition and which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:- (i) T...
G. Jothi and Others Vs. The Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(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 relating to the Check Slip No.3/2015 dated 02.11.2015 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to register two sale deeds executed by me in favour of Mr.K.Selvaraj and Mr.K.K.Selvaraj without insisting original sale deed No.757 of 1962 dated 25.03.1962 in view of para (c) of the circular No.18339/C1/2012 dated 25.04.2012.) 1. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Check Slip No.3/2015 dated 02.11.2015 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to register two sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of Mr.K.Selvaraj and Mr.K.K.Selvaraj without insist...
Dr. S. Senthil Andavan Vs. The Secretary to Government of India
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent not to interfere in the petitioner's medical practice on the light of Apex Court Judgment based on his representation dated 13.01.2015.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent not to interfere in his medical practice on the light of Apex Court Judgment based on his representation, dated 13.01.2015. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is possessing basic qualification in Homeopathy, Unani or Siddha and also he is also possessing Diplama Degree in Community Medical Service and Essential Drugs. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Gazettee on 26.02.2014, wherein 129 persons have been approved and enrolled in the Register of Priessnitz Institute of Naturopathy as Registered Naturopathy Medical Practice. In the said gazette, the petitioner's name was also mentioned...
M. Dhanaraj Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Trichy Electricity Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its order bearing Memo No.EE/OandM/U/Try/Adm/A1/F Suspension/D.39/2011dated 29.01.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the service by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2016.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its order bearing Memo No.EE/O and M/U/Try/Adm/A1/F Suspension/D.39/2011 dated 29.01.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the service by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2016. 2. Mr.A.U.Ramanathan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition...
K.P. Kailasam Vs. The District Collector, Erode District and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order made in Ka.En.Se.Po.V.They.E.Thonuma.2/Ko.New Application/Se.Ku.024/2010-11 dated 18.05.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and confirmed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 16.07.2010 made in KaEn-MoPo/EMEPAVA/E/MaThoA/VaAa/Ko. Me.Mu.Manu/En-10/10 and consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings no Ka.En.Se.Po.V.They.E/ThoNuOo.2/Ko.MaThoA/En.1948/Manu En./13-14 dated 02.04.2013 and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to register the Agriculture Service Connection based on the petitioners' application dated 17.12.2009.) 1. Heard Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, for respondents 1 to 4 and 8, Mr.R.Nalliyappan for Respondents 5 to 7 and Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of ce...
Kumar Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment dated 07.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.91 of 2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai.) A.Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the convictions and sentences dated 07.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.91 of 2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to occurrence a tussle has arisen between the accused and deceased at the time of seeing a drama in the village. Under the said circumstances, with intention to murder the deceased, on 20.08.2009, at about 06.00 a.m., the accused has tried to attack the de facto complainant by name Rajendran in the place of occurrence with the intention to bring the deceased to the place of occurrence and during the course of occurrence the accused has attacked one Arumugham @ Ayyar and also during the course of occurrence the accused...
The Director of Matriculation Schools Vs. Ilm Matriculation School
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.12065 of 2015, dated 23.07.2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Mr.V.M.Bala Mohan Thambi, learned counsel, has entered appearance for the sole respondent/writ petitioner. By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. 2. The respondent school is run by Ilm Educational Development Trust. It was established from the academic year 2014-15, as per the norms prescribed in the Code for Regulation of Matriculation Schools and various Government Orders. The school has constructed a building, in a vast extent of 6 acres, which is more than the requisite land area (3 acres) as per G.O.(2D)No.48, School Education Department, dated 21.07.2004, prescribed for rural areas. The school has constructed area of 12,934 sq.ft., with all infrastructural facilities with reference to Class Rooms, Furniture, Laboratory, Library and Sanitary facilities, etc., pursuant to the app...
Valluvar Guide Technical Training College Vs. M. Dinakaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the Third Respondent in his letter dated 16.12.2015 and quash the same consequently, forbear the Respondents 3 to 5 from any manner taking possession of the property situated at in Site No.12, 17 and 18 in R.S.No.9/1 of punjai lakkapuram village, Erode Taluk comprising an extension of 7130 sq. ft except otherwise then in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar V. International Assets Reconstruction Co., Ltd., and Others [CDJ 2014 (SC) 297].) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the Third Respondent/Bank in its letter dated 16.12.2015 and to quash the same. Further, it has sought for restraining the Respondents 3 to 5...
W. Peter Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Vs. -----
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
V. Ramasubramanian, J. Preamble "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. It is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond the doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »