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. Siva Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police L and O
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, IV Additional Court, Chennai, S.C.No.19 of 2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 18.02.2013, 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.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple 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 Mr.Kandhara. He was a resident of West Avenue, Kamaraj Nagar, at Thiruvanmiyur. On 14.1.2010, the deceased was sitting casually on the platform near Hyundai ...
Soundira Pandi and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 15.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 15.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint dated 15.02.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 08.03.2016. 3. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Venkatesh @ Venkatachalapathi and Another Vs. State rep. by the Inspec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 3.10.2015 in C.S.R. No.548/2015 and take action as per law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 03.10.2015 in C.S.R. No.548/2015 and take action as per law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 03.10.2015, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.219 of 2016 dated 04.03.2016 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Adiseshan and Others Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.19 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.19 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.19 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has been registered against the petitioners/accused in both petitions. 3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the petitioners/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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, N.Jacqline, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, S...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nagapattinam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.06.2013 in MCOP.No.893 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (VI Additional District Court), Madurai.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in MCOP.No.893 of 2010, dated 20.06.2013, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (VI Additional District Court), Madurai. 2. Considering the limited challenge, with regard to quantum of compensation alone, there is no need to advert to the findings of the Claims Tribunal, regarding negligence and liability fastened on the appellant insurance company, to pay compensation. 3. Material on record discloses that on 15.10.2009, about 12.30 hours, on Sikkal-Aaliyur road, near Nagore Branch Road in Nagapattinam District, when Sikkandar was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-D-7038, at a moderate speed, observing traffic rules, a Lorry bearing regis...
Gopi and Another Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Namakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.4 of 2012 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 30.10.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 4 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. Including these appellants, totally, there were five accused. The Trial Court had framed as many as 8 charges against the accused Nos.1 to 5, as detailed below:- ad>Sl.No.Charge NumberRank of AccusedPenal Provision1Charge No.1Accused No. 1Section 148 IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.2 to 5Section 147 IPC3Charge No.3Accused No. 1Section 302 IPC4Charge No.4Accused Nos.2 to 5Section 302 r/w.149 IPC5Charge No.5Accused No.1Section 307 IPC(2 counts)6Charge No.6Accused Nos.2 to 5Section 307 r/w. 149 IPC (2 counts)7Charge No.7Accused No.1Section 324 IPC8Charge No.8Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5Section 352 IPC...
A. Ramakrishnan Vs. Vijayalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents/contemnors herein for wilful disobedience of the order dated 12.6.12 made in I.A.No.34 of 2012 in O.S.No.5 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Contempt petition, is filed alleging disobedience of the order, dated 12.6.12 made in I.A.No.34 of 2012 in O.S.No.5 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he married Vijayalakshmi, the 1st respondent, on 11.06.1992, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, he has two children namely, Arulmurugan and Lakshmi Abirami. They were born on 27.01.1994 and 08.07.1995, respectively. 3. The petitioner owns several properties, through his father. There is a registered partition, dated 27.06.2001, between himself and other brothers. He was allotted five items of properties. 4. According to him, a mere partition deed was not sufficient, fo...
BMIC Limited. Vs. Chinnakannan Sivasankaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. Introductory: Whether the Order passed by the learned Master issuing Notice in the Application for the grant of leave would come within the meaning of the term Order or Decision entitling the aggrieved to file an Appeal to the Judge under Order 14, Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules is the core issue that arises for consideration in this Application filed by a Decree Holder to execute a Judgment and Decree passed by the English Court. The Basic Facts: 2. The Applicant obtained a Money Decree against the Respondents 1 and 2 from the High Court of Justice, Queen s Bench Division, Commercial Court on 12th June 2012 in Claim No.12. (Folio No.1439). Since the Decree was not satisfied, the English Court passed a Worldwide Freezing Order against the assets of Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as Judgment Debtors) on 10th July 2014. 3. The Applicant filed proceedings before the Supreme Court of Seychelles to register the Judgment passed by the English Court. The First Appli...
M. Farthima Vs. The Registrar, High Court, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorari after calling for the concerned records relating to the order A.No.550/2014, dated 24.11.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post to which she is eligible and found suitable on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 27.10.2015.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has focussed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records pertaining to the order in A.No.550/2014 dated 24.11.2015 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode and to quash the same. Further, she has also sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 2nd Respondent to appoint her on compassionate grounds in any suitable post to which she is eligible and found suitable on the basis of a representat...
Singaram @ Singaravelu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police protection to construct the house of the petitioner in S.No.14/64 situated in Madathupatti, Kanniyapatti Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police protection to construct the house of the petitioner in S.No.14/64 situated in Madathupatti, Kanniyapatti Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and Mr.R.Alagumani, learning counsel for R4. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to by their name. 4. It is the case of Singaram @ Singaravelu (defacto complainant) that he is in possession of the house bearing S.No.14/64 situated in Madathupatti, Kanniyapatti Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and his possession is b...