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. Saravanan and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Crl.O.P.(MD)4330/2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to P.R.C.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Crl.O.P.(MD) 18255/2013: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.290 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District in Crime No.333 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent.) 1 .The petitioners have filed Crl.O.P.(MD) 4330 of 2016, seeking to call for the records pertaining to P.R.C.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)18255 of 2013 has filed this petition to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in S.C.No.290 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions ...
The Doveton Protestant Schools Association, Rep. by its President H.E. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common judgment and decretal orders of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 03.07.2015 passed in C.M.A.Nos.88/2014, 93/2014 and 94/2014 setting aside the order and decretal order of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 18.06.2014 made in I.A.No.483/2011 in O.S.No.7079 of 2010.) Common Order: 1. These civil revision petitions have been preferred against the decretal orders of the learned lower appellate judge dated 03.07.2014 made in C.M.A.Nos.88/2014, 93/2014 and 94/2014. Notice before admission was given and the respondents, who were the appellants in the above said civil miscellaneous appeals, have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel appearing for both parties submit that the civil revision petitions may be disposed of at the time of admission itself, as the issue involved in them is only a legal issue. 2. Accordingly, the arg...
Sivamani and Others Vs. Sivasamy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the ex-order and fair order, dated 06.11.2015 in E.A.No.25 of 2015 in E.P.No.76 of 2014, in O.S.No.33 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the ex-order and fair order, dated 06.11.2015 in E.A.No.25 of 2015 in E.P.No.76 of 2014, in O.S.No.33 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in the Suit. The respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit in O.S.No.33 of 2010, for declaration and recovery of possession. The Suit was decreed on 27.08.2014, directing the petitioners to deliver the suit property. The respondents/plaintiffs filed E.P.No.76 of 2014 for execution of decree. The petitioners filed E.A.No.25 of 2015 for stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2014 for the period of six months. Accordin...
V. Saravanan Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.49 of 2016 dated 22.01.2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.49 of 2016 dated 22.01.2016 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.49 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, has been registered against the petitioner / sole accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/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, R.Ramanujam, Special Sub-Ins...
Mathivanan Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in S.C.No.192 of 2011 dated 16.11.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.192 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. He stood charged for offences under Sections 323 and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 16.11.2012, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and no fine was imposed for any of the offences. Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the appellant/sole 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 Mr.Jallanthar. He was a resident of Nemili Vi...
M. Maria Rajam and Another Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of this Court dated 05.03.2015 in W.P.No.25894 of 2014.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellants have filed the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 05.03.2015 in W.P.No.25894 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 05.03.2015, in W.P.No.25894 of 2015 (filed by the Appellants/ Petitioners), at paragraphs 5 to 7, had observed the following: 5. Subsequently, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.393 of 1994 after considering the evidence and document produced found that no criminal initiation or fraud was committed by Murugesan, who has said to have executed the document in favour of Tmt.Sivanthiammal and accordingly order passed discharging Murugesan was confirmed. Further it is seen that the 2nd petitioner has filed a Pauper O.P. before this Court against the 3rd respondent and others to set aside the sale deed Document No. 1317 o...
M/s. Jupiter and Company, Rep. by its Proprietor K. Seshadri, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate [Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-2], Egmore, Chennai-8 in C.C.No.1790 of 2013.) 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C., the complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant/complainant instituted this private complaint case for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate [Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-2], Egmore, Chennai-8 took cognizance in C.C.No.1790 of 2013. Issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C to the accused/respondent. He appeared before the Court. Received the copies. 3. On 25.05.2015, the learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order: "Complainant absent today; No representation for complainant; this case is posted for cross examination of PW1; inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the complainant, he continuously ...
S.Geetha Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1549 of 2015 in C.C.No.13 of 2015, dated 18.01.2016 on the file of the learned Special Judge for P.C. Act Cases, Chennai.) 1. A-2 in C.C.No.13 of 2015 before the learned Special Judge under P.C. Act cases, Chennai challenges the dismissal of her discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.1549 of 2015. 2. A-1 is District Manager, TAHDCO, Chennai A-2/petitioner employed as Computer Operator in the said office. Defacto complainant alleged that A-1 demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification to discharge his public duty of recommending him for grant of loan for the purchase of autorickshaw under Self-Help Employment. Defacto complainant is not willing to grease his palm. He lodged complaint with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. A trap was laid. Instead of A-1, A-2 fell into the trap, the phenolphthalein test conducted with regard to A-2. Her hands were soiled. Solutio...
Kamariya Begam Vs. Nagalakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and executable order passed in I.A.Nos.152 and 153 of 2015 in O.S.No.4 of 2007 dated 31.08.2015 in the Court of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.) Common Order: The issue involved in both the C.R.Ps are interlinked and both the C.R.Ps are disposed by this common order. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2007. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondents filed I.A.No.6 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features of the suit property with the help of qualified surveyor. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit property on 16.02.2008 with surveyor and filed his report and plan on 11.04.2008. 3. The Trial commenced and evidence of both parties were completed and the suit...
Muthu Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed in S.C.No.28/2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram, convicting him under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.2,000/-, i/d to undergo one year R.I.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge -2, Kancheepuram. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 31.10.2012, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/ 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 Mr.Viji. The accused had a suspicion that Mr.Viji had de...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »