Chennai Court February 2016 Judgments
Arul @ Arul jothi and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police Nelliku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals are preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, made in S.C.No. 32 of 2010, dated 30.07.2012.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1to 17 in S.C. No. 32 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The 1st appellant in Crl.A.No.548 of 2012, who is arrayed as accused No.8, died during the pendency of the appeal. The Trial Court framed as many as 19 charges against the accused Nos.1 to 17, as detailed below :- ad>Sl.No.Charge NumberRank of AccusedPenal Provision1Charge No.1Accused Nos. 1 to 17147 IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.1 to 6,9,13 and 14148 IPC3Charge No.3Accused Nos. 1 to 17449 IPC4Charge No.4Accused Nos.1, 2,6, 9, 10 and 14302 IPC5Charge No.5Accused Nos.3 to 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 to 17302 r/w.149 IPC6Charge No.6Accused Nos.5,6and9324 IPC7Charge No.7Accuse...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arun Prakash and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Anti Land Office o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.39 of 2014, dated 20.05.2014 on the file of the first respondent-police.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.39 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. Since both the criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash the same FIR, they are disposed of by way of this common order. 3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17143 of 2014 are the accused 1 and 2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16551 of 2014 are the accused 3 and 4 respectively, in the said case. The 2nd respondent herein viz., Santharam lodged the complaint with the 1st respondent-Police as against the petitioners herein and two others and the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappan Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to release and return the 1 No of Gold Bar and 3 Nos of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams, covered by O.S.No.1183/2015-AIU.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to release and return 1 No of Gold Bar and 3 Nos of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams, covered by O.S.No.1183/2015-AIU. 2. According to the petitioner, he is residing in Chennai and working in Cine Field. On 23.10.2015, he boarded Flight No.IX681 Air India Express at Trichy Airport at 12.30 hrs to return to Chennai. The petitioner arrived at Chennai Airport and he, being a Domestic Passenger, on his arrival, even before going before the table, the petitioner was taken to Air Intelligence Unit Room, situated in the Arrival Hall and according to the petitioner, the auth...
Tag this Judgment!Palanisamy Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C.No.312 of 2011 by order dated 30.12.2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur) convicting the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 of I.P.C.) S. Nagamuthu. J, 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.312 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast track Court No.V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 30.12.2011, the trial Court convicted him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and no fine amount was imposed. 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.Lakshmi. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Jothi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to the Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's brother detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 20.8.2015 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.771/2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's brother namely John @ John Bose son of Arulappan aged 24 years before this Court and set the petitioner's brother at liberty from detention now the petitioner's brother detained at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu, namely, John @ John Bose, aged 24 years, son of Arulappan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.771/2015, dated 20.8.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the dete...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Elementary Education and Others Vs. T. Ramasamy and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2013 made in M.P.(MD).No.2of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013.) J. Nisha Banu, J.] 1. The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 21.06.2013 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. 2. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013 and the appellants herein are the respondents in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. The second respondent herein is the fourth respondent in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned in the Writ Petition for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Appeal. 3. Extending the interim orders passed in a batch of writ petitions to give temporary approval to the teachers concerned in similar writ petitions, the respondent authorities were directed to pass orders granting necessary aid by way of salary to those teachers as temporary measure purs...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited Vs. The Principal Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the petitioners on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order in C.Nos.2802/C-2/2015-16/5 dated 05.02.2016 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant stay of collection of tax and interest for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 till the disposal of the appeal by the 3rd respondent.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the petitioners on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order in C.Nos.2802/C-2/2015-16/5 dated 05.02.2016 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant stay of collection of tax and interest for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 till the disposal of the appeal by the 4th respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the Assessment w...
Tag this Judgment!Porur Krishna Nagar Makkal Nala Sangam Vs. The Executive Officer, Poru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: W.P.No.39135 of 2015 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the encroachment in the corner of 3rd street, Junction at Krishna Nagar, Porur as per the order of the third respondent in Ma.Aa.11 Na.Ka.No.A2/6193/2013 dated 4.9.2013 and notice No. Zone-XI U- 34/C.No. /2013 dated 28.11.2013. W.P.No1208 of 2016 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with or demolishing the temple in S.F.No.328/1A/A1 as a part of the private house at Krishna Nagar, Porur, Chennai-116 in view of the order of this court in W.P.No.17649 of 2010 and M.P.No.1/09 dated 22.1.2010 and also in Review Application No.43/11 dated 30.3.2011.) Common Order: Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Seeking a direction against the official respondents 1 to 4 for removal of the alleged en...
Tag this Judgment!N. Lakshmi Vs. The State rep by The Commissioner of Police Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: H.C.P. has been filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Deelipkumar aged about 23 years before this Court and set him at liberty and to grant any other order.) M. Jaichandren, J. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. She had also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed, as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to award adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to award adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that on a complaint given by the petitioner, petitioner enquiry is pending in CSR No.38 of 2016. 3. Under such circumstances, the Police should conduct thorough enquiry in CSR No.38 of 2016 and during enquiry, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the opposite party, respondent police shall take appropriate action and give protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »