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.
Balaraman Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Thiruverkadu Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee in S.C.No.248 of 2008 dated 27.04.2009 and acquit the accused from all charges.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.04.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Indira. The accused is her husband. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the dau...
Madhiazhagan and Another Vs. State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.35 of 2010, on the file of the Sessions Judge No.2, Kancheepuram. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 452, 302, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code; the second accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 452, 302 r/w.34 and Section 201 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 27.9.2011, the trial Court convicted them on all the charges and sentenced both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence...
S.S. Mathalaimuthu Vs. A. Mathalaimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decretal order of the learned District Munsif of Palacode, dated 27.01.2011 in I.A.No.1272 of 2010 in Unumbered suit.) 1. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 27.01.2011 in I.A.No.1272 of 2010 (Unnumbered suit) passed by the Learned District Munsif, Palacode. 2. The Learned District Munsif, Palacode, while passing the impugned order, in I.A.No.1272 of 2010, on 27.01.2011, at paragraph 8, had observed the following: 8. As per the above said provision the Plaint is liable to be rejected as the deficit court fees is not paid within the stipulated time. The Petitioner has filed this application to condone the delay of 883 days in representing the suit papers. The petitioner has contended that he had shifted his office and that the suit papers mingled with other suit bundles and thus he could not trace out the sam...
S.K.M. Egg Products Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. V. Jothimani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.04.2013 made in I.A.No.968, 969 and 970 of 2012 in O.S.No.205 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode.) 1. The defendant in the original suit is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions. The suit was filed by the respondent in the Civil Revision Petitions for recovery of money allegedly due to it from the revision petitioner alongwith interest and cost. But, the plaint came to be presented with insufficient Court fee stamps. Hence, the plaint was returned by the trial Court for re-presentation after supplying the necessary Court fee stamps. The respondent/plaintiff re-presented the plaint with a petition under Section 149 CPC to extend the time for payment of the deficit Court fee. The same was allowed and the thirty days time was granted for payment of deficit Court fee. Within the said thirty days time initially allowed by the trial Court, ...
Sankarankovil Sarvodaya Sangh through its Secretary Vs. D.S. Mariappan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
(Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the second respondent's order dated 31.07.2007 made in C.P.No.105 of 1997 and quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the second respondent's order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 and quash the same. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the present writ petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has served in the society of the respondent. On 12.07.1996, a charge memo has been issued and consequently he has been suspended from service. From 28.11.1996 to 30.09...
Eggya Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram Distict in S.C.No.86 of 2009 dated 12.02.2010, convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C., r/w 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Atrocities Act and sentenced to life imprisonment.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.86 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act Cases, Villupuram. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(v) of "The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). By judgment dated 12.02.2010, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the said convicti...
A. Alagesan and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Common Order: (R. Sudhakar, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Government and the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 2. In this batch of cases, the petitioners seek to declare Rule 54B of the General Rules in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, inserted vide G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 11.8.2010, as not applicable to the petitioners; to declare class 4A of the consequential notification No.49 of 2012, dated 16.11.2012 as null and void insofar as the petitioners are concerned; and to consequently direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 17.7.2006 by increasing the upper age limit of OC candidates from 30 to 35 and increasing the upper age limit for other candidates from 35 to 40 years. 3. The writ petitioners in all these cases have made an attempt to apply for Group-I Services Examination ...
Dr. P. Vijayan and Another Vs. State Represented by Dy. Superintendent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
(This Criminal Revision Petitioner is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of dismissal of petition for return of jewels which was seized by the respondent on 12.1.2011 at the petitioners house on 28.1.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.309 of 2016 in C.C.No.19 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, XIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The spouses, who are being prosecuted in a disproportionate wealth case in C.C.No.19 of 2014 before the learned XIII Additional Special Judge, (CBI cases), City Civil Civil Court, Chennai, aggrieved by the dismissal of their Crl.M.P.No.309 of 2016 filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of certain properties have directed this Criminal Revision. 2. In the course of investigation, prosecution had seized certain items of jewelleries from the lockers of the accused persons. They are now in the custody of the Court. In the calendar case P.W.1 has been examined. He is to be cross-e...
Guruswamy Naidu and Others Vs. The Principal Commissioner and Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in SR.No.726/95 dated 18/10/1995, SR No.726/95D dated 6/8/1997 and Na.Ka.No.2199/10C dated 7/1/2011 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to restore the name of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of Survey No.240/2 and extent of 1.66acres at Vilinjiambakkam village.) 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard M/s.Ilamurugan and Balamurugan, for the petitioners and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioners seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, ...
P. Rajasekar Vs. Selvarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions (NPD) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the fair and decreetal orders made in I.A.Nos.65, 67, 70, 72 and 74 of 2015 in A.S.Nos.67, 85, 102, 103 and 104 of 2013, respectively, dated 08.04.2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode.) Common Order: 1. The suit in O.S.No.441 of 1996 was filed by one Balamani and P.Rajasekar, seeking partition, separate possession, permanent injunction and other incidental reliefs. The suit was decreed on 30.10.2012, as prayed for. Challenging the decree and judgment, five appeals were filed by D-8, D-5, D-1, D-9 and D-6, respectively, in A.S.No.67 of 2013 (R.Selvarajan), A.S.No.85 of 2013 (K.S.Vijayakumari), A.S.No.102 of 2013 (Mohanasundaram), A.S.No.103 of 2013 (Purushothaman) and A.S.No.104 of 2013 (Kiruthika Sivaprakasam). 2. Pending appeals, Applications were taken out by the Revision Petitioner herein in I.A.No.65, 67, 70, 72 and 74 of 2015 praying to reopen the appeals fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »