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.
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court dated 17.09.2012 made in W.P.No.28769 of 2011.) Common Judgment: (M. Venugopal, J.) 1. The Appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals as against the order dated 17.09.2012 in W.P.Nos.28769 to 28774 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the orders in W.P.Nos.28769 to 28774 of 2011, on 17.09.2012, had set aside the orders of the 3rd Respondent (3rd Appellant herein) returning the papers filed by the Petitioner's School (Respondent herein) for approval of the appointment of persons viz., 1.Edward as Watchman, 2.Rev.Sr.R.Nirmala as Junior Assistant, 3.M.Mark as Waterman, 4.A.Rajasekaran as Office Assistant, 5.P.Gandhimathi as Office Assistant, 6.Gowri as Scavenger and the impugned orders of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Appellant dated 30.05.2007 and consequently, allowed the Writ Petitions. Further, the Learned Single Judge had directed the Respon...
S.R. Deepak Vs. The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
(Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.29595 of 2015 dated 15.10.2015.) Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the appellant herein, completed Matriculation in the year 2008 from Bharathidasan Matriculation School and within one year, completed Plus 2 course in 2009. Thereafter, he sought admission to B.Com. degree course in SRM University and passed the same in First class in May, 2013. A degree certificate was granted on 9th February, 2014. On the basis of the graduation in B.Com., the petitioner / appellant sought admission to three year LLB degree course for the academic year 2015-16 in the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, the first respondent herein. But, admission to the said course was denied on the ground that the appellant had not completed 10+ 2 examination on regular basis and as such, does not possess basic qualification for admission to three year LLB degree course. Denial of admission prompted the ap...
A. Rajakafur Vs. The District Magistrate and Collector, Virudhunagar D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in his proceedings made in Na.Ka.A1/12966/2014 dated 14.11.15 and to quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, until disposal of the Appeal before the 5th respondent in AIR.No.650 of 2015 filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.) 1. In W.P(MD)No.16009 of 2015, third respondent herein/auction purchaser of the property, subject matter of sale certificate dated 29.03.2014 issued by the Indian Bank, Sivakasi Branch, Virudhunagar District, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 therein, to take physical possession of the said property and hand over the same, to the writ petitioner, by implementing the order made by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, first respondent therein, in Roc.No.E3/24710/...
Govindaraj Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Prohibition En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed in SC.No.49/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in SC.No.49/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The second accused was one Raja. The appellant/A1 stood charged for the offences under section 302 IPC and 3[2][V] of the SC/ST Act, 1989. By the judgment dated 19.04.2011, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/A1 under both charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s.302 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence u/s.3[2][V] of the SC/ST Act. A2 was acquitted from both the charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- [a] The deceased in thi...
Gandhikumar Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Thirumanur Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur dated 18.06.2012 in S.C.No.56 of 2009 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 18.06.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the pr...
Mathan @ Mathan Mohan and Others Vs. State, rep. by the Station House ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 6.09.2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, in S.C.No.8 of 2010. S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Sessions Case No.8 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, at Puducherry. Including the appellants, altogether there were six accused in this case. The trial Court framed charges under Section 342 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused. By judgment dated 6.09.2011, the trial Court convicted these appellants (accused 1 to 3 and 6) alone under Sections 342 and 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous impriso...
Kala Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.07.2015 in Memo No.655/BCDFGISSSV/2015 against the petitioner's daughter in law Kaviya, Female, W/o.Siva, aged about 25 years, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Memo No.655/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 30.07.2015, whereby the petitioner's daughter in law Kaviya, Female, W/o.Siva, aged about 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil ...
K. Anbazhagan Vs. The Pollachi Municipality Rep., by its Commissioner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent from demolishing superstructure in the leasehold land bearing Door No.117, Raja Mill Road, Pollachi, dispossessing from it and preventing the petitioner from running the Automobile Workshop therein as a lessee in any manner till the expiry of the present lease period on 31.03.2015 and thereafter, till the expiry of the lease period to be renewed by its as per the G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept., dated 03.07.2007.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent Municipality from demolishing the superstructure in a leasehold land bearing Door No.117, Raja Mill Road, Pollachi, and not to dispossess the petitioner till the expiry of the lease period to be renewed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. 2. The petitioner's father was giv...
N. Manoj Vs. E. Kandasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court dated 20.04.2015 made in W.P.No.11278 of 2015.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant has focussed the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated 20.04.2015 in W.P.No.11278 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2.The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order in W.P.No.11278 of 2015 (filed by the Petitioners/Respondents 1 and 2 herein), on 20.04.2015, at paragraph 4, had observed the following: 4. This Court, taking into consideration the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioners and without going into the merits of the application, directs the respondent to consider the application dated 03.02.2015 submitted by the petitioners, on merits and in accordance with law, after putting on notice the persons concerned, and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the...
M. Annadurai Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.01.2016 and to take immediate action to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 3 and 4 in public pathway lies in S.No.582/23 in Vellanoor Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Though the petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation, dated 13.01.2016 and to take immediate action to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 3 and 4 on the public pathway, which lies in S.No.582/23, Vellanoor Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District, and filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, at para 3 of the supporting affidavit, he has contended that his right to approach the main road, alleged to have been encroached is infringed, thus, indicating that there is an element of pri...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »