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.
P. Lakshmi Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent under Sections 417, 376 and 313 IPC and quash the same as against this petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent under Sections 417, 376 and 313 IPC and quash the same as against this petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel for R2. 3. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she and one Saravanakumar/A1 were in love with each other and that on the promise of marrying her, A1 had sexual intercourse with her, on account of which, the defacto complainant became pregnant. It is further alleged by the defacto complainant that she was taken by A1 and other accused to Virudhunagar Kalidoss Hospital...
M. Aundivel and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Cha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 by their resolution No.1 dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 by their resolution No.1 dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2, 4 to 9 and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. After some elaborate arguments, a consensus is arrived at by all the parties to the effect that both the petitioners as well as the 10th respondent who claims to represent another community, also concede that the land belo...
Dr. S. Harshavarthan Vs. S. Karpagavalli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, r/w. Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2014, passed in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013 by the learned District Judge, Sivagangai District, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2013, passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.149 and 155 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.) 1. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2014, passed in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013 by the learned District Judge, Sivagangai District, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2013, passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.149 and 155 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court heard both the H.M.O.Ps. and H.M.C.M.As. together and disposed the same by a common order and judgment. The parties in both the appeals are one and the same and issue is ...
M. Gopi Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 28.06.2013 in S.C. No. 259 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 259 of 2012 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 28.06.2013, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased, in this case, was one Ganesan. It is alleged that the accused had illicit intimacy with one Vasanthi, who is the wife of the deceased. When it came to light, the deceased Ganesan expressed his dissent. Thi...
Baluchamy and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theni ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C. No.98 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in C.C. No.98 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and quash the same. 2. As this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.98 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. Permission is granted. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points available with the petitioners before the Trial Court. 4. At this juncture, though no miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners, yet learned counsel for the petition...
R. Karthikeyan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Deve ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.5343 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner Society's representation dated 19.09.2015 for the purpose of returning the property documents to 9 members of the petitioner's Society who had repaid the entire loan with interest towards their housing loans and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Common Order 1. Even as per the resolution, the petitioner was authorized to file the writ petitions only after getting permission from the Government. However, the present writ petitions have been filed without getting permission from the Government and therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these writ petitions and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, these writ petitions ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in CDJ 1997 SC 1294 (Smt.Ram Rati vs. Saroj Devi and others). 3. It is pertinent to reproduce the reasoning given in para 8 of the Judgment. 8. It is difficult to give acceptance to the contention that the respondent made an application to the Returning Officer and the Returning officer had not recounted. In the light of the mandatory language of Rule 76 of the Rules, it is incumbent upon a candidate or an agent, if the candidate was not present, to make an application in writing and give reasons in support thereof, while seeking recounting. If it is not done, then the Tribunal or the court is not empowered to direct recounting even after adduction of evidence and consideration of the alleged irregularities in the counting. The essential condition-precedent is that an application in writing should be made and the Returning Officer should pass an order with reasons in s...
Rengasamy and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Crime No.106 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police dated 07.06.2010.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in Crime No.106 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police dated 07.06.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.106 of 2010 has been completed and a charge sheet has also been filed in this case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, which was taken on file in C.C.No.19 of 2016. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Mohamed Salim Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Madurai and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners is concerned.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in C.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners is concerned. 2. As this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. Permission is granted. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points available with the petitioner before the Trial Court. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the presence of the petitioner bef...
Thirumalai and Others Vs. T. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records pertaining to the D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is seen that Dhanalakshmi had married Thirumalai on 01.11.1998 and it is alleged by Dhanalakshmi that she has been subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2001 for divorce, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, aggrieved by which, the 1st petitioner has preferred an appeal. While so, Dhanalakshmi has moved the Trial Court under the D.V.Act for various relief. It is further alleged by Dhanalakshmi...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »