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.
S. Selvam and Another Vs. State of Puducherry rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in S.C.No.7 of 2008 dated 18.04.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. A.1 in this case was one Mr.Vinayagam (the appellant in Crl.A.No.105 of 2012). The trial Court framed two charges against all the three accused for offence under Sections 449, 302 I.P.C., r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 18.04.2011, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under Sections 449, 302 I.P.C., r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced all the three accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simpl...
M/s. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for 2 the records of the 2nd respondent in his letter Lr. No. EE/OandM/AMBT/F.TOE/D.98/2016 dated 29.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Supply Code and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to give refund/ adjust of Rs.6,40,000/- already collected from the petitioner towards compounding fees and pass further orders.) 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 29.01.2016. In the notice it has been alleged that during inspection, it was found that the petitioner has commit...
Meenambal and Others Vs. Shantha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Appeal filed under Sec.96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2001 made in O.S.No.110 of 1999, on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Cross Objection filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2001 made in O.S.No.110 of 1999, on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.) Common Judgment: 1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.110 of 1999 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The respondents 6 to 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, who was the seventh defendant in the suit. The third respondent is the 8th defendant. The 4th respondent, who was the 9th defendant had died during the pendency of the appeal and the 5th respondent was recorded as the legal representatives of the 4th respondent. 2. The Cross Objection has been filed by the defen...
Binu Kumar and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Health Inspector Grade II.) Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Health Inspector Grade II. 2. Heard Ms.Anna Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner in both petitions and Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal. 3. Ms. Anna Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are several vacancies for the post of Health Inspector Grade II and the respondents have not followed the proper selection procedure to fill up all the vacancies. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the various interim orders passed by this Court in Writ petition Nos. 16488 of 2012; 455...
Canara Bank, Srivilliputtur Branch, Rep. By its Senior Manager Vs. Ban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.03.2015 made in W.P.No.10799 of 2002 on the file of this Court.) Dr. P. Devadass, J. 1. This writ appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner, namely, Canara Bank, Srivilluputhur has been directed as against the order of the Writ Court dated 24.03.2015 passed in WP.No.10799 of 2002. 2. Mahendran, an NRI in Singapore, deposited certain sum of money for a certain period in Canara Bank, Srivilliputhur Branch. He had also availed of loan from the Bank. His Fixed Deposit Receipt has been held as security for the loan. The Bank renewed the deposit without any intimation to the depositor. The loan dues rose to more than the amount in deposits made by the third respondent. The depositor requested the Bank to adjust the matured value of the deposit towards the loan amount. However, the Bank refused to do so. 3. In the circumstances, the third respondent complained to the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai (first respondent...
A.L. Shah Vs. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Petitions filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chenani in A.I.R.(SA) Nos.136, 137 and 138 of 2015, dated 9.4.2015.)Common Order: (Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) 1. The instant petitions arise from the common order dated 9th April, 2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in A.I.R.(SA) Nos.136, 137 and 138 of 2015. Having regard to the commonality of question of law involved in all petitions, all petitions are considered and decided by this common order. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, claiming to be the lawful owner of the subject property, filed three applications under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act ?), before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, questioning the legality and validity of the notices dated 22nd March 2012 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFA...
Govindaraj and Others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem Fast Track Court No.2, Salem by judgment dated 30.11.2011 in S.C.No.59 of 2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No. 59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and the accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 30.11.2011, the trial Court convicted A1 under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act; A2 and A3 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court sentenced the first appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and ...
M.D. Thirukkumaran Vs. Dr. N. Rajasekar, Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience to the order passed by this Court in WA.No.157 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013 and punish him accordingly.) Dr.P. Devadass, J. 1. The appellant, in WA.No.157 of 2013, seeks to punish the respondent, namely, Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for his wilful disobedience to this Court's order dated 06.12.2013. 2. In 1964, the petitioner was born with multiple disabilities more particularly 'Cerebral palsy'. He passed B.A.(English), M.A.(English) and also certain Diploma exams. He made representations to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for employment. It was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellors of Madras and Madurai Kamaraj Universities. On 15.07.1998, he was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.2,500/- per month in Madurai Kamaraj University. Subsequently, he sought for regular appointment in the light of Persons with Disabilitie...
Medical Council of India Vs. Christian Medical College, Vellore Associ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Appeals filed against the order passed by this Court dated 9 September 2015, passed in W.P.No.19133 of 2015 and 30 June 2015 i W.P.No.15908 of 2015.) Common Judgment: (K.K. Sasidharan, J.) 1. The intra court appeal in W.A.No.12 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 30 June 2015 in W.P.No.15908 of 2015 whereby and whereunder a Writ of Mandamus was issued to accept the application filed by Christian Medical College, Vellore, for increase of seats from 1 to 3 in MD-Geriatric Medicine. 2. The appeal in W.A.No.1595 of 2015 is directed against the order dated 9 September 2015 in W.P.No.19133 of 2015; quashing the order dated 2 June 2015 passed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, returning the belated application filed for opening the new course in M.D.- Family Medicine and issuing a Mandamus to consider the application on merits without rejecting it on the ground of delay. W.A.No.12 of 2016:- 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.15908 of 2015 is stated to be a minority institution, e...
R. Rajasegaran Vs. State by; Dy. Supdt., of Police, SPE/ACB/CBI, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set-aside the Memo Order dated 18.01.2016 passed on the petitioner's memo dated 18.1.2016, in the case pending trial in C.C.No.8650/2000 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam.) A4 in C.C.No.8650/2000 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore challenges the rejection of his memo dated 18.1.2016 whereunder the trial Court had refused to summon P.Ws. 51, 94, 111 and 112 for his cross-examination. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to put his defence effectively, it becomes necessary for him to cross the said PWs, however, this aspect has been overlooked by the trial Court. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that the memo has been filed with reference to the orders of the trial Court passed in Crl.M.P.No.3254/2015 dated 31.12.2016, however, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »