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.
Berlin Felix @ Raja Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Kanyakum ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.560 of 2014, pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.560 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.560 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioner / sole accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/sole accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, S.Venkateswaran, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel. Learned ...
Savani Carrying Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the third respondent in Crl.O.P.No.19088 of 2014 on 20.8.2014.) 1. The defacto complainant in Cr.No.29 of 2014 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the third respondent in Crl.O.P.No.19088 of 2014 on 20.8.2014. 2. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court stated supra, the third respondent/accused had executed bail bond. Now, the defacto complainant approached this Court for cancellation of the same on the ground of deception alleged to have been practised by the third respondent in obtaining anticipatory bail. 3. Petitioner contends that in the second anticipatory bail petition the third respondent has furnished incorrect Crl.O.P. No of his previous anticipatory bail petition.Thus, the petitioner, who had appeared as intervenor in the said petition could not file his intervening petition in the second anticipatory bail petition....
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Health ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court dated 23.04.2013 in W.P.No.21234 of 2012.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellants have preferred the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.04.2013 in W.P.No.21324 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order, on 23.04.2013 in W.P.No.21324 of 2012 [filed by the Respondent/ Petitioner], at paragraphs 4 to 6, had observed the following: 4.But it appears from the records that no notice was issued before the impugned order was passed, cancelling the promotion granted, four years before the date of the impugned order. 5. Additionally, the petitioner has filed a form filled up by him at the time of counselling, clearly indicating the pendency of disciplinary proceedings in columns 9 and 10. Against column 9, the petitioner has stated 'yes' and against column 10, the petitioner has also given the reference number of the charg...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
P.N. Prakash, J. 1. After pronouncement of final orders in the main writ petition on 18.02.2016, the party-in-person made a special mention in the Open Court, stating that she has filed a miscellaneous petition on 27.10.2015 for amendment of the prayer in the main writ petition and the said miscellaneous petition was neither numbered nor returned by the Registry and therefore, the final order dated 18.02.2016 requires to be reconsidered. Hence, the matter was posted under the caption For Being Mentioned and the petitioner in person was heard on 08.03.2016. 2. This Court called for the file from the Registry and found that the petitioner has filed an amendment petition on 27.10.2015, which is available in the case bundle. It is true that it was neither numbered nor returned. 3. The question is, would it have in any way affected the final verdict of the case? 4. To answer this question, it may be necessary to extract the prayer in the amendment petition as follows: ....it is humbly pr...
The General Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. A. Glades ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 30.03.2010 passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.215 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, in M.A.C.O.P.No.215 of 2004, dated 30.03.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, by which, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,69,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the legal representatives of the deceased Alphones Frederick, a Foreman in BHEL, National Insurance Company Limited, has filed the present appeal. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are that on 07.09.2002 at 07.30 p.m., when the deceased Alphones Frederick was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-45-M-7097 on Trichy - Thanjavur road, a lorry bearing...
Manjunath Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 04.08.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.226 of 2006.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.226 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 4.08.2009, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six 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: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Lakshmidevi. P.W.1 is her husband and P.W.2 is her son. P.W.2 was then studying in a local school. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were living together. The accused also be...
P. Nagappan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein in Detention order No.911/2015 dated 10.9.2015 and setting aside the order of detention passed therein and setting the detenu, N.Anandaraj, s/o.P.Nagappan, 34 years, and set him at liberty now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, N.Anandaraj, aged 34 years, son of P.Nagappan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Detention order No.911/2015 dated 10.9.2015, 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 Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), bran...
Rajaprabakaran Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records related to the Crime No. 86 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Keelarajakularaman Police Station, Virudhunagar District and quash the same.) 1 .This petition has been filed to call for records related to the Crime No. 86 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Keelarajakularaman Police Station, Virudhunagar District and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that the petitioner's wife committed suicide in connection with which a case in Crime No.86 of 2015 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. After RDO's enquiry, it was found that she did not die of dowry harassment. Thereafter, the respondent police have filed an alteration report, deleting the names of A2 to A5. However, investigation is being conducted by the respondent police with respect to the invo...
P.K. Vinayagam Vs. Saraswathi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni to number the E.A.SR.No.1521 of 2016 in E.A.No.206 of 2013 in E.P.No.109 of 2010 in O.S.No.36 of 2010 filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and Section 151 CPC and dispose the same on merits.) The third party/claimant is the revision petitioner. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff/decree holder and the second respondent is the defendant/judgment debtor in the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2010 and in E.P.No. 109 of 2010 respectively. 2. The suit in O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of Sub Court, Arni, has been filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent, seeking the relief of specific performance. The Court below has passed an exparte decree dated 30.08.2010. 3. According to the claimant/petitioner herein, when the Court passed the exparte preliminary decree, the decree included the property belonging to the claimant/revision peti...
Sridevi and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(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 passed by the 2nd respondent herein made in Memo BCDFGISSSV No.843/2015 dated 31.8.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ramachandran, s/o.Pandiyan, Hindu, aged about 28 years, residing at No.21/12, S.M.Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066, as a remand prisoner, before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Ramachandran, aged 28 years, son of Pandiyan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo BCDFGISSSV No.843/2015 dated 31.8.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boo...