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.
Prabhakaran and Others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Than ...
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 pertaining to Cr.M.P.No.14 of 2016 in S.C.No.242 of 2015 dated 10.02.2016 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Thanjavur and set aside the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for records pertaining to Cr.M.P.No.14 of 2016 in S.C.No.242 of 2015 dated 10.02.2016 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and set aside the same. 2. The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.242 of 2015 for offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 in chief on 22.12.2015 and the petitioners did not cross examine them. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.14 of 2016 in S.C.No.242 of 2015 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross examination, which the Trial Court dismissed on 10.02.2...
V. Radha Vs. State and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner, the mother of the minor girl Ms. Vigneshwari, aged 15 years has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that the said minor girl was missing from 29.11.2015 onwards. She made a complaint to the first respondent herein upon which the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 183/2015 under Section 366(A) I.P.C. Since the petitioner expressed that the minor girl might have been kidnapped by the second respondent herein, the said case was registered against the second respondent. Since the girl was not secured by the first respondent, the petitioner filed this Habeas Corpus Petition as early as on 16.12.2015. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 21.12.2015, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice for the first respondent and this Court ordered notice to the second respondent. The second respondent has not made appearance. Despite several adjournments, the first respondent did not secure the minor girl. 3. On 25.02.2016,...
Thirumani and Others Vs. Sakthi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 28.07.2015 made in I.A.No.317 of 2014 in O.S.No.134 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.) 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.S.Hasan Fizal, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The material papers available on record are also perused. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.134 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram are the petitioners in the present revision. Admittedly, the suit properties were purchased by two brothers, by names Raghupathy and Thanikachalam under a Sale Deed dated 21.02.1979. The first respondent/first plaintiff is none other than the widow of the above said Thanikachalam. The second respondent/second plaintiff is the daughter of the said Thanikachalam. They filed the suit as legal heirs of Thanikachalam, claiming the...
R. Alagarasan Vs. P. Padma
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed by the Fast Track Court No.II (J.M.Level), Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.3900 of 2015 dated 06.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Fast Track Court No.II (J.M.Level), Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.3900 of 2015 dated 06.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the complainant and the accused. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as hand loan in discharge of which, the accused had given a cheque for Rs.50,000/- which, on presentation, got dishonored. The complainant issued a statutory notice and on the failure of the accused to repay the amount, the complainant lodged a prosecution in STC No.798 of 2013 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The complainant filed the proof affidavit dated 25....
Selvam Vs. State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge Sheet in C.C.No. 163 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar in Crime No. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent No. 1 for the alleged Offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(B) and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and quash the same as illegal in so for as petitioners are concerned. 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge Sheet in C.C.No. 163 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar in Crime No. 38 of 2013 dated 06.02.2013 on the file of the respondent No. 1 for the alleged Offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(B) and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the...
Marimuthu Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in SC.No.395/2007 on the file of the learned Mahalir Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 01.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.395/2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and vide judgment dated 01.04.2013, the Trial Court convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 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 Thavamani. The accused is her husband. They got two children, who were studying at Melmaruvathur by staying in a Hostel. Thus, the accused and the deceased were alone residing in their house. In due course o...
Marimuthu Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in SC.No.395/2007 on the file of the learned Mahalir Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 01.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.395/2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and vide judgment dated 01.04.2013, the Trial Court convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 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 Thavamani. The accused is her husband. They got two children, who were studying at Melmaruvathur by staying in a Hostel. Thus, the accused and the deceased were alone residing in their house. In due course o...
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter of Patents Act against the order dated 21.11.2014 in W.P.No.23713 of 2014) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as Office Assistant W.E.F.01.10.2008 with all consequential benefits, in the 5th respondent school on the basis of the proposal of the school dated 01.10.2008.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 21 November, 2014 made in W.P.No.23713 of 2014. 3. The writ petitioner / first respondent herein preferred the writ petition, seeking a direction to the fourth appellant to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner/first respondent as Office Assistant with effect from 01 October 2008 with all consequential benefits in the second respondent...
P.M. Sadananda Vs. S. Choodamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 02.02.2016 made in I.A.No.948 of 2015 in O.S.No.180 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Perundurai.) 1. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.180 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Perundurai is the petitioner in the revision. The first respondent herein filed the above said suit against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 for partition claiming a share equal to that of her brothers on the basis of her claim that the suit property was the separate property of her father Manickam, who died intestate in 2003. Except the petitioner herein/second defendant, others are not contesting the suit. 2. The petitioner / second defendant contends that the family of Manickam was a trading family having a business in Karnataka and with the income derived from such family business, the property in question came to be purchased and that hence, the first respondent/plaintiff is not ...
Arul Vs. State rep.by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.181 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin.) A. Selvam, J. 1. The present appellant is an uxorious husband, who is said to have committed an uxoricide due to his lust. 2. The contraction of the case of the prosecution is that the accused by name Arul has married the deceased viz., Misba in the year 2008 in accordance with Christian Rites. After marriage, both the accused and deceased have lived in the house of the defacto complainant by name Soundarraj, father of the deceased. The accused has very often used to attack the deceased. The deceased has reported her father that her husband (accused) is having illicit intimacy with so many ladies. Further she reported that her husband has tried to have unnatural intercourse. On 22.11.2011 at about 19.15 hours, in the house of the defacto complainant, the accused has tried to have coition w...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »