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.
Parameswari Vs. The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officials and subordinates from initiating any coercive action in respect of the premises bearing Door No.124, DPF Street, Ramasamy Layout, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore 641 037, till the disposal of the revised plan to be submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent within a reasonable time.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Mr. K. Magesh, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Rameshwar, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent. 2. The second respondent, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, issued notice dated 01 March 2016 to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been called upon to demolish the building in question as the same has been constructed without any permission. The instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing ...
Sasikala and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(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 detenue's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent detention No.786/2015 dated 26.8.2015 and set aside the same and produce the detenue Palani, son of Velu, aged about 46 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Palani, aged 46 years, son of Velu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in detention No.786/2015 dated 26.8.2015, 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 and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), bra...
Mudikrishnan @ Krishnan Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer:The above mentioned Criminal Appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying this Court, to call for the records pertaining in S.C.No.180 of 2007, dated 04.05.2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants and to acquit the appellants and pass such other orders, as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.) Common Judgment P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.200 of 2011 is the accused No.2, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.261 of 2011 is the accused No.1 and the appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.316 of 2011 are the accused Nos.5 and 6 in S.C.No.180 of 2007 (Crime No.524 of 2005) on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur. Totally, there were ten accused in the case, including the appellants herein....
M/s. India Sun Marketing and Another Vs. M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in S.T.C.No.110/2015 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court NO.II, (JM Cadre), Madurai and to quash the same and to provide any such relief or relieves as this Court deems fit.) 1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition to quash the records in S.T.C.No.110 of 2015, on the file of Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant and accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that Indio Sun Marketing(A1) is a proprietary concern and it is owned by Arumuga Devar(A2). On a reading of the complaint, it is seen that Indio Sun Marketing represented by Arumuga Devar has availed loan from the complainant bank and A2 issued the impugned cheque, dated 06.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, towards part payment of loan, and the same was dishonoured. The complainant issued statutory notice dated 1...
Mathiazhagan Vs. State, rep. by Virudhachalam Police Circle Virudhacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.208 of 2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.208 of 2011, on the file of the District Mahila Court, Cuddalore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 194 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By judgement dated 19.10.2012, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; however 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 two years. 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 cas...
P. Sankari Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent hereinto provide adequate protection to the petitioner and her mother through the 2nd respondent herein based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 22.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent herein to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and her mother through the 2nd respondent herein based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 22.02.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not given correct names of the private respondents in her petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. Permission is granted. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition giving correct particulars of the respondents....
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Others Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in W.P. No.34450 of 2012.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. The instant intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellants State against the order dated 18th March, 2013 passed in W.P.No.34450 of 2012. 2. Heard Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel, representing for Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent herein / writ petitioner. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The writ petitioner / respondent herein preferred the writ petition, seeking quashment of the notification No.VI(1)/273/98 dated 4th March, 1998 published in No.8 in Part-VI Section 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in view of abatement of acquisition proceedings under Section 3(2) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act...
R. Dharanivel Vs. P. Kotteeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in I.A.No.191 of 2015 in I.A.No.5 of 2015 dated 24.11.2015 in respect of the F.C.O.P.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu.) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the leave of the Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition. An endorsement to that effect has also been made. 2. Recording the endorsement, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others Vs. M. Panneer Losi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)Nos.605 and 607 of 2013 dated 18.12.2014.) Common Judgment: S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. By consent of both parties, the writ appeals are taken up for final disposal. As facts and submissions are similar, both the writ appeals are heard together and disposed of, by a common judgment. 2.Challenge in theses appeals, is to a common order, made in W.P(MD)Nos.605 and 607 of 2013, dated 18.12.2014, by which, a learned single Judge, has directed the appellants, to regularise the services of the 1st respondent in both the appeals/writ petitioners, within a time frame. 3. M.Panneer Losini 1st respondent in .A(MD)No.135/15 (Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.605/13), has contended that she was appointed as Office Assistant in A.1187 Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, C.Pudupatti, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. She had passed higher secondary examination and a holder of Diploma in Co-operative Management, ...
Kottaisamy and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapura ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the complaint given by one Sulthan Alavudeen against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the respondent. 4. The petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »