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.
S. Chellamuthu and Another Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15748/2012/A4 dated 24.06.2013 confirming the impugned order of the second respondent made in Si.Pa.4/2007/A1 dated 16.04.2012 and quash the same as illegal, consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the patta in the name of the petitioners in respect of Survey No.264/1 at Ambigai Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15748/2012/A4 dated 24.06.2013 confirming the impugned order of the second respondent made in Si.Pa.4/2007/A1 dated 16.04.2012 and quash the same as illegal, consequently to...
Manjunatha Reddy Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 18.01.2013 passed in SC.No.31/2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in SC.No.31/201 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishanagiri. Apart from the appellant herein, there were two other accused persons, viz., one Mr.Manjunatha Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy and Mr.Ravi, S/o.Munirajappa. The Trial Court framed as many as four charges as against the accused persons, viz., 341 IPC [against A1 to A3], 506[i] and 302 IPC [against A1] and 302 read with 34 IPC [as against A2 and A3]. By the judgment dated 18.01.2013, the Trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 from all the charges leveled against them ; but convicted the appellant herein for the offences u/s.341, 506[i] and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.341 IPC ; sentenced him to undergo six mon...
Meenal Vs. Sedhu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2016 in I.A.No.741 of 2015 in un-numbered H.M.O.P.No of 2015, dated 29.01.2016 on the file of the Learned Family Judge, Madurai and consequently direct the Learned Family Judge, Madurai to waiving off the statutory period of 6 months and to dispose of the main H.M.O.P. Petition within stipulated time framed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of dismissal, dated 29.01.2016 in I.A.No.3 of 2016 in I.A.No.741 of 2015 filed by the Revision Petitioner, under Section 13(B2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking leave to file the divorce petition within the period of one year. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.08.2015. Difference of opinion have arisen between them and therefore, it became impossible for them to live as husband and wif...
The Secretary to Government, Represented to State of Tamil Nadu, Perso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 08.04.2014 passed in W.P. No.25556 of 2013.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition/State against the order dated 8th April, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25556 of 2013. 2. The writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein, seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.112, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 13th July, 2012 passed by the first appellant herein, whereunder a direction was issued for upgradation / stepping up of pay on par with juniors in one unit as stated in para 6 of the order as well as para 14 of the order fixing cut off date for payment of benefits. A consequential direction was also sought to the appellants 1 and 3 herein to pass orders for the post / pay parity of seniors in one unit recruited and appointed as Typist / Personal Clerk to the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services be...
K. Sathishkumar Vs. A.S. Manickkam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the order passed on 13.07.2015 in O.S.No.Nil of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the rejection of plaint by the Court below. The plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance based upon the unregistered sale agreement. The lower Court has chosen to reject the plaint. 2. It is true that the agreement is unregistered. Whether the unregistered agreement is totally and completely irrelevant and inadmissible at all circumstances is the issue, which ought to have been considered by the Trial Court. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the unregistered sale agreement is admissible as (a) evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and (b) evidence of any collateral...
Ramachandran Vs. S. Dhanasekaran
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: CRP.No.916 of 2009: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 6(B) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act T.N.Act 25 of 1955 as amended against the order of Revenue Court, Thanjavur dated 23.04.2008 made in P.No.28 of 2004 (Kumbakonam Camp) and prays for Reversal of the order. ) 1. The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order of Revenue Court, Thanjavur dated 23.04.2008 made in P.Nos.28,25,26,27,32,30 and 31 of 2004 (Kumbakonam Camp) and dated 11.11.2008 made in P.No.35 of 2007 (Papanasam Camp) respectively and prays for Reversal of the order. 3. In all these Civil Revision Petitions issue is one and the same. Therefore, all the Civil Revision Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioners in all the Civil Revision Petitions are tenants in the property in question. According to the respondent, he is owner of the property. The petitioners failed to pay rent for the Fasli 1408 to 1412 in CRP. Nos.916 to 92...
S. Priya and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Saravanan, s/o.Mani Goonda who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and to pass an order to call for the records of detention order imposed on the petitioner's husband in the detention order No.857/BCDFGISSVI/2015 dated 4.9.2015 respondent and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Saravanan, aged 28 years, son of Mani, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in detention order No.857/BCDFGISSVI/2015 dated 4.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual...
V.G. Naidu @ Govindasamy Naidu Vs. Pahlajraj Gangaram @ Pahlaj Rai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.02.1990 made in E.P.No.162/89 in HRC 136/75 on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Madras.) A defaulting tenant, who was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.837/- towards arrears of rent on or before 14.10.1977, having committed a default again, and having suffered an order of eviction on 25.01.1978, whether can be allowed to prolong the case without vacating the premises (including the legal representatives also) till 2016, i.e. nearly for 40 years?. Is it not the right time to revamp the judicial system, to reform the procedure and redraft the related laws, is the critical issue that would arise in the mind of the Court as well as the litigants. 1.1. When getting delivery of possession from the tenant is more onerous, than the delivery of a child from a mother and when the execution of the decree for the possession is achieved by the landlord; When such delive...
Selvaraj Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed in SC.No.156/2011 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.156/2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC. By the judgment dated 21.03.2013, the Trial Court convicted the appellant herein for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- [no default sentence was imposed]. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- [a] The deceased in this case was one Yesodha @ Prabha. She was residing at Door No.75/56 at Shevapet Angalamman Koil Street in Salem District. The accused had developed illicit intimacy with her. He used to visit her house frequently. In due course of time, the deceased ...
K. Gopinath Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to remove the shops around the Palani Temple Hills Girivala pathai where persons belonging to Islam and other religion are running shops in which they are eating beef and insulting the religious faith of the devotees and creating disharmony by considering the petitioner's written representation dated 12.03.2016 within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Claiming himself to be a practising lawyer, under the garb of President, Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Mr.K.Gopinath, party in person, is before us, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing Respondents to remove the shops in and around Palani Temple Hills Girivala pathai, run by persons belonging to Islam and other religion where they are eating beef, insulting the religious faith of the devotees and creating disharmony, by considering his representation dated 12.03....
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »