Chennai Court March 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.
Alagammal and Others Vs. Sundaram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 11.01.2016, passed by the learned District Munsif, Palani, in I.A.No.914 of 2015 in O.S.No.277 of 2010.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.01.2016, made in I.A.No.914 of 2015 in O.S.No.277 of 2010, passed by the learned District Munsif, Palani, 2. The petitioners are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.277 of 2010, for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.640 of 2010 in O.S.No.277 of 2010, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. That application was ordered and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the suit property on 11.08.2012 and filed his report on 26.11.2012. The petitioners filed written statement. The trial was commenced and the respondent wa...
Boorasamy (died) and Others Vs. State represented by Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 15.10.2007 in S.C.No.321 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Cuddalore.) A-2 and A-4 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.321 of 2006 are the appellants. Totally there are 4 accused, namely, A-1 to A-4. Ultimately, A-3 was acquitted, however, A-1, A-2 and A-4 were convicted and sentenced as under:- ad>AccusedConvictionSentencBoorasamy (A-1)Section 323 IPCRs.500/-, i/d 2 months S.I.Ramu (A-2)Section 324 IPC (2 counts)1 year R.I and fine Rs.500/-, i/d 3 months R.I for each countKumar (A-4)-do--do- 2. The convicted persons have preferred this appeal. Pending appeal, A-1 had passed away. The remaining accused are A-2 and A-4. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under:- (i) PWs-3 and 4 are spouses. PWs-1 and 9 are their son and daughter. They and A-2 and A-4 belongs to Melapudhupettai village in Cuddalore District. Between both side, there ...
Senthil Agro Products, rep by its Manager, S. Sivamurugan Vs. S. Renuk ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.3350 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and quash the same in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in S.T.C.No.3350 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and quash the same in so far as the Petitioners are concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. On 24.02.2015, the Agriculture Officer visited Senthil Agro Products Distributor/Dealer, No.1/5049/1, Rosalpatti, Virudhunagar (A3/1st petitioner herein) and took samples of certain insecticides in terms of Section 22(5) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short the Act, 1968), which, when analyzed, were found to be misbranded and was of substandard quality. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Paramathi issued a show cau...
L. Andi Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society District Co-Op ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Thava no.1/2015 (Na.Ka.No.1140/2015 Saba) dated 05.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the present office bearers who were elected as Directors of Q-1193 A.Punavasal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society on 04.03.2013 and holding office till date.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 05.06.2015 and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the present office bearers who are elected as Directors of Q-1193 A.Punavasal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society) and holding office. 2. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:- 2.1. According to the petitioner, an election for the said Society was declared on 04.03....
K. Kanagaraj Vs. The District Collector -cum- Arbitrator (Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 13.04.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court and thereby refer the dispute to the competent court in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 13.04.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court and thereby, refer the dispute to the competent Court in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for enhancement of compensation under the law. However, he ought to have filed an application against the grant of compensation before the competent Court. Instead of doing so, according to him, by mistake, h...
A. Leo Charles and Others Vs. M. Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.274 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem and to quash the same.) Common Order: 1. These criminal original petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.274 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem. 2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.3298 of 2014 has been arrayed as 2nd accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.28671 of 2015 have been arrayed as accused 4 to 6 in the case in C.C.No.274 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposing these petitions, are as follows:- 3-1. The 1st petitioner A.Leo Charles (A2) is the Managing Partner of the firm M/s.Bricksteel Enterprises. The 2nd petitioner Breddy (A4) is the Manager, the 3rd petitioner Sheikh Ameer (A5) is the Public Relation Officer and the 4th petit...
R. Indra Gandhi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to enter the petitioner's name as owner in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey No.139/3 and 139/4 measuring 1.33.5 hecters and 0.57.0 hecters respectively of Kurippankulam village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to enter the petitioner's name as owner in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey No.139/3 and 139/4 measuring 1.33.5 hecters and 0.57.0 hecters respectively of Kurippankulam village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, a counter has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter ...
M. Thamilselvi Vs. The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2016 and to sanction educational loan for the petitioner for the academic years from 2015 to 2018 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2016 and to sanction educational loan for the petitioner for the academic years from 2015 to 2018. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's representation may be considered on condition that since the earlier loan has already been pending for payment, if the petitioner agrees to make payment on reschedule of loan amount. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the peti...
A. Alamelu Mangai Vs. A. Krishnaveni
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the ex-order and fair order dated 19.02.2016, made in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the ex-order and fair order dated 19.02.2016, made in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.11 of 2012, for recovery of possession. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2012, for permission to file additional documents. According to the respondent, the documents were not available with him at the time of filing of the suit and now only he got the documents and filed. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and objected the same. According to the petitioner, t...
Rajamanickam and Another Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Gobiche ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in S.C.No.192 of 2012 dated 01.03.2013.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants herein are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.192 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam. The 2nd accused Surya @ Silambarasan died during trial and thus, the charges against him stood abated. The 3rd accused Rajamanickam died on 09.08.2015 during the pendency of the appeal in Crl.A.No.199 of 2013. The trial court framed charges under Sections 363 and 376 of I.P.C. against the 1st accused and under Section 363 read with 109 of I.P.C. against the accused 2 to 4. By judgment dated 01.03.2013, the trial court convicted the 1st accused under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and the accused 3 and 4 under Section 363 read with 109 of IPC and sentenced the 1st accused to undergo rigorous imprisonme...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »