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.
Suthakaran and Another Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tiruppur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.185 of 2010 dated 27.09.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 respectively in S.C.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. They stood charged for offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 302, 302 r/w 201 and 307 of IPC. By judgment dated 27.09.2012, the trial court convicted them under all the charges and sentenced them under Section 307 IPC to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; under Section 302 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs...
Iyappan Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction dated 18.02.2011 passed in S.C.No.86 of 2009 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.) Dr. P. Devadass, J. 1. The sole accused in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.86 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam is the appellant. 2. The learned Judge found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life and also fined him Rs.1000, i/d 3 years S.I 3. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under:(i) The accused and the deceased are closely related. On 21.2.2009 at about 4.15 p.m., near the burial ground in Anathandavapuram Selliyamman Koil Street, P.W.1's brother's wife Sakunthala 's death ceremony took place. Quarrel arose between the relatives. At that time, the accused assaulted the deceased on his neck with M.O.4 knife. P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 witnessed the occurrence. (ii) On 21.2.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., at Myladuthurai Police Station, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P8...
N.P. Sons Constructions Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned tender notification dated 12.02.2016, issued by the 2nd respondent, published in Tamil Daily Thinaboomi dated 12.02.2016, to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law.) 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered contractor of the forest department and the challenge in this writ petition is to a tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent calling for tenders for improvement and maintenance of road work from Pennagaram tp Anaibethalla in Dharmapuri Distirct. As per the notification which has been published in the Tamil daily dated 12.02.2016, the tender forms will be available for sale upto 26.02.2016 till 5.00pm and the completed tender forms have to be submitted by 3.00pm of 29.02.2016 and on the same da...
Amathu Jappar Fathima and Others Vs. Fazilla Azad and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.) The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.95 of 2015. The petitioners filed the present C.R.P under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.91 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram for a declaration and permanent injunction that the suit property belongs to them and for temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They also filed I.A.No.378 of 2015 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession till the disposal of the sui...
Raja @ Chellaraja and Others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.) Common Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals have been directed against the convictions and sentences dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous animosity on 03.05.2009 at about 07.40 p.m., in Nehru Nagar, Vilangudi in front of the house of one Periyasamy, the second accused has abetted the first accused to murder the deceased by name Karuppasamy. The first accused has tried to attack the deceased Karuppasamy and at that time one Muthu has tried to deter him, but the second accused has caught hold of him. The first accused has attacked one Bhuvaneswari and thereby caused injury on her person. During the course of occur...
Sundar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to accord necessary permission to conduct the Kabadi Tournament from 26.2.2016 6p.m to 11p.m on 27.2.2016 and from 6 a.m to 4 p.m on 28.2.2016 at the Play Ground situated before Muthumariamman Kovil, Satyanagar, Odaipatti, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District by providing necessary police protection by considering petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2016.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to accord necessary permission to conduct the Kabadi Tournament from 26.2.2016 6p.m to 11p.m on 27.2.2016 and from 6 a.m to 4 p.m on 28.2.2016 at the Play Ground situated before Muthumariamman Kovil, Satyanagar, Odaipatti, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District by providing necessary police protection by considering petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner woul...
The Executive Officer, Virudhunagar District Vs. Solaiappan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.420 of 2012 dated 03.01.2013.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal, is to an order, passed in W.P(MD)No.420 of 2012 dated 03.01.2013, by which a learned single Judge, has issued a Mandamus, directing the appellants, to reinstate the respondent, in service forthwith, with continuity of service and backwages. Writ Court has further directed that the order of reinstatement in service, should be passed, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the abovesaid order. 2. Facts deduced from the material on record, are that the respondent, Sanitary Supervisor, Mamsapuram Town Panchayat, has been charged under Sections 120(B), 167, 467, 471, 467, 409, 477(A) IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in C.C.No.872 of 1995, on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar, and vide judgment,...
G.S. Senthilnathan Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders in C.No.43/DSP/EOW-II/NKL/2015, dated 25.03.2015 and C.No.105/DSP/EOW-II/NKL/2015, dated 09.07.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, C.No.105-11/DSP/EOW-II/NKL/2015, dated 22.09.2015 passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential order passed on the Inspection Note dated 30.12.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent, and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to register the documents on presentation for registration, relating to the lands comprised in S.Nos.138/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 138/2 of Karikali Village, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders in C.No.43/DSP/EOW-II/NKL/2015, dated 25.03.2015 and C.No.105/DSP/EOW-II...
V. Appavoo Vs. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Developm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records of the second respondent issued in his proc. Na.Ka.No.2560/Nir/08-2 dated 18.09.2008 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment (i.e.) from 16.08.1987 and further direct them to give all services and monetary benefits.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by way of calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order passed in Na.Ka.No.2560/Nir/08-2 dated 18.09.2008 and quash the same and also direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from 16.08.1987, date of his appointment and also direct the respondents to give all monetary benefits. 2. It is averred in the ...
K. Subramani Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.8.2012, made in S.C.No.87 of 2010, on the file of the Court of District Principal and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.87/2010, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The second accused was one Aanchi @ Aanchiyappa. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant and under Section 302 read with 109 of I.P.C. against the second accused. By judgment dated 25.8.2012, the trial Court acquitted the second accused, but convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 read with 302 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two yea...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »