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.
M.S. Rajamannar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.02.2016 and investigate the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.02.2016 and investigate the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 11.07.2015, given by this petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the opposite party on 01.05.2014, which is said to have expired on 31.03.2015, despite which, the opposite party has not handed over the leased premises to the petitioner. 4. In a case of this nature, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR, as that will amount to an abuse of process of law and the pet...
Murugan Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Coimbatore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.5 Coimbatore) at Tiruppur in S.C.No.58 of 2011 dated 20.08.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.58 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.5 Coimbatore) at Tiruppur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.08.2011, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. No fine has been imposed. 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: 2.1. The deceased Mrs.Jothi was the wife of the accused. They were living together at Kottaimedu village in Palladam Taluk. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are the father, mother and brother respectively of the deceased. They were also ...
Saravanabava and Another Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in SC.No.388/2002 dated 26.02.2007.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in SC.No.388/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The Trial Court framed a lone charge against A1 u/s.302 r/w 34 IPC and as against A2, framed two charges, viz., 109 r/w 302 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 26.02.2007, the Trial Court convicted both the accused u/s.302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced A1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and sentenced A2 to undergo imprisonment for life and no fine amount was imposed. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are 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 M...
N. Surendran Vs. State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Ar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 5th respondent to produce the body of the petitioner's minor daughter, namely, Nandhini Devi, before this Court, and to set her at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court, by the father of the detenue, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the 5th respondent to produce the minor daughter of the petitioner, namely, Nandhini Devi, before this Court, and to set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the detenue is the elder daughter of the petitioner. She was studying in Xth standard, in the Government School at Vilangudi Government School. On 10.12.2014, she did not return home after the school hours. Therefore, the wife of the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent, on 11.10.2014, suspecting that the minor girl had been kidn...
Sheik Uduman Alim Sahib and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 26.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.199 of 98 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tirunelveli.)G. Chockalingam, J.1. This case was directed to be posted today as last chance for taking steps. Till date steps were not taken. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
T. Renganayagi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 21.02.2016 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 21.02.2016 and investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. On reading of the complaint dated 21.02.2016, it essentially appears to be a civil dispute between the petitioner's employer and one Gnanambal. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said Gnanambal had removed the fencing put up by the petitioner's employer on 20.02.2016 at 06.30pm. Since the dispute appears to be civil in nature with respect to the property in question, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR and in order to give a criminal colour to it, the petitioner has stated that she was threatened with wooden log and the complaint does not inspire the confidence of this Court for issuance...
A. Duraipandian and Another Vs. K. Baskaran and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buidlings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.04.2005 passed in R.C.A.No.44 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, reversing the fair and executable order dated 24.12.1998 passed in R.C.O.P.No.557 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.)1. When the matter was called today, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a memo stating that the tenant has already vacated from the premises and the civil revision petition has become infructuous. The memo reads as follows:"Since the respondent/tenant has already vacated the premises, the C.R.P. has become infructuous. Hence, the petitioners pray this Hon'ble Court to close the above C.R.P. and thus render justice."2. Recording the above memo filed by the petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the con...
K. Rajagopalan Vs. R. Gnanapandithan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition (NPD) filed under Section 25 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set-aside the order and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.366 of 2014, dated 02.09.2014, by the learned IX Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the order and decreetal order, dated 03.07.2014 passed in R.C.O.P.No.2076 of 2012 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai and to allow this Civil Revision Petition.) The landlord is the Revision Petitioner. 1.1. The landlord filed the petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.2076 of 2012, on the ground of willful default in the payment of rents and also on the ground of own use and occupation. The respondent disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and further contended that it was only a lease for a period of five years for which the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards lease amount and Rs.50,000/- towards EB Deposit, both refundable at the time of vacating the house. 2. T...
Punnivathi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thirupur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Crl.A.No.793 of 2011:Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, in S.C.No. 28 of 2009 dated 30.11.2011. Crl.A.No.847 of 2011: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, in S.C.No. 28 of 2009 dated 30.11.2011. Crl.A.No.47 of 2012: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, in S.C.No. 28 of 2009 dated 30.11.2011. Crl.A.No.48 of 2012: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, in S.C.No. 28 of 2009 date...
Martin Manrique Mansour Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records of the learned Sessions Judge-Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1376 of 2015 in S.C.No.109 of 2013 and set aside the order dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records of the learned Sessions Judge-Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1376 of 2015 in S.C.No.109 of 2013 and set aside the order dated 27.01.2016. 2. It may not be necessary to elaborately discuss the facts of the case and it would suffice, if the minimum facts that are required for deciding this petition, is discussed. 3. The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.109 of 2013 for the major offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. During the progress of the trial in S.C.No.109 of 2013, several witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl.O.P(MD) No.8606 of 2015 for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to c...