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.
K.S.M. Sarbuddin Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent herein to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 which was assigned CSR No. 77 of 2016 by the respondent police, investigate the same and take appropriate action.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent herein to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.02.2016 which was assigned C.S.R.No.77 of 2016 by the respondent police, investigate the same and take appropriate action. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.77 of 2016. 3. In view of the above submission, the respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is ma...
Kalimuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy 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 1st and 2nd respondents to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members for their life and limb considering the representation of the petitioners dated 09.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members for their life and limb considering the representation of the petitioners dated 09.03.2016. 2. It is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his own brother in connection with which, the petitioner lodged a complaint, in which a petition enquiry was conducted in CSR No.34 of 2015 and the same was closed, since the petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry. 3. Under such circumstances, since it is a civil dispute between the parties, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and seeks appropriate remedy. If there is any threat...
Gurusamy @ Kumar @ Bombay Kumar @ Anandanan Navashkhan @ Navabkhan @ N ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment and Conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai in S.C.No.459 of 2006 dated 23.02.2007.) 1. The sole accused in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.459 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai is the appellant. 2. He was prosecuted before the said Court for offences under Sections 448, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of IPC. 3. After trial, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him as under: ad>ConvictionSentence(i) 392 r/w 397 IPC(i) 7 years R.I. and fine Rs.500/- i/d 2 months S.I.(ii) 448, 336, 425 and 506(ii) IPCNo separate sentence imposed in view of major punishment stated supra. Fine amount paid. 4. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under: (i) PW.1 is a Sales Representative. He is residing at Dr. No.173, Singanna chetty street, Chindadripet, Chennai-2. On 30.3.2005 at about...
Muthu @ Thukka Muthu and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide in Cr.M.P.No.45/15/E1 dated 4.8.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent to produce the body of the detenu Muthu @ Thukka Muthu, son of Arasan, aged 43 years, who has confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty in the interest of justice.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu, namely, Muthu @ Thukka Muthu, aged 43 years, son of Arasan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.45/15/E1 dated 4.8.2015, 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 Offenders, Slum Grabbers ...
Mahesh Vs. Sivanthi Gnanamuthu Nadar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.01.2014, in O.S.No.823 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and struck down the same.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.01.2014, made in O.S.No.823 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, and strike down the same. 2. The petitioner is the third party in the Suit in O.S.No.823 of 2007, which was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 against the respondents 4 to 6. According to the petitioner, the judgment and decree, dated 23.02.2014, made in O.S.No.823 of 2007 was obtained by the respondents 1 to 3 by playing fraud on the Court in collusion with respondents 4 to 6. No notice under Section 80 C.P.C. issued before the filing of the Suit. The respondents 4 to 6 did not conduct the Suit properly. The learned Judge failed to verify the description of ...
G. Rohini Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 08.02.2016 and to investigate the same and file final report within a stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 08.02.2016 and investigate the same and to file a final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.207 of 2016. 3. In view of the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by t...
Madhumathi Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 302 and 201 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 17.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 302 and 201 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 17.02.2016 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition and he has also made an endosement to that effect. 3. In view of the above submission and endorsement made, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
S.M. Krishnan Vs. The Executive Officer, Ramanathapuram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(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 on the file of the respondent with regard to tender proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.A1/46/2016 dated 04.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the work order issued by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
R. Ramesh Vs. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty and Co., Private Limited and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the Common Order dated 20.03.2015 passed in O.A.Nos.722 of 2013 in C.S.No.645 of 2013, on the file of this Court.) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By consent of parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant initially sought to canvass that the problem in valuation is coming on account of the extent of land area, as according to him that extent of the area was 1512.04 acres, while the violation was predicated on an area of 869.638 acres. This position was, however, disputed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents who has stated that the total area of land has been taken into consideration, but the problem is that there are issues of pattas not being issued, litigations pending, encroachments having taken place and some of the encroachment also being blame...
S. Venkatesh and Another Vs. Prama Sakthivel and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.12.2015 in I.A.No.1088 of 2015 in O.S.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.) This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the decreetal order dated 10.12.2015 passed in I.A.No.1088 of 2015 in O.S.No.101 of 2010 by the District Munsif, Srivaikundam. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.101 of 2010. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The respondents filed I.A.No.409 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application was allowed on 20.09.2011 and the Commissioner was appointed. As per the order, the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit schedule property on 07.12.2013 and filed his report on 23.01.2014. The petitioners did not file any objection within the time limit. But, the petitioners have filed objection after 1 year 6 months and 25 d...