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.
Kalimuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and her family members on the basis of her complaint dated 29.2.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and her family members on the basis of her complaint dated 29.2.2015. 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 29.02.2015, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 05.03.2016. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
State rep by The Inspector of Police Vanur Police Station Villupuram V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal judgment dated 26.08.2009 in S.C.No.4/2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam and convict the respondent/accused.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The respondent is the sole accused in S.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. He stood charged for offences under Sections 354, 366, 397, 302 IPC and Section 4(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 2002. By judgment dated 26.08.2009, the trial Court acquitted the accused from all the charges. Challenging the said acquittal, the State has come up with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: [a] The deceased in this case was one Mohanasundari. She was working as a Field Officer in an Insurance Company known as 'Pearless India Limited'. P.W.6 Panneerselvam is her husband. Sh...
S. Atchayakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event namely Adalpadal scheduled to be held on 14.02.2016 at night in connection with Pongal Festival in Arulmigu Sri Paripoorana Mariamman Kovil at A.Ramalingapuram Village Srivilliputtur Taluk Virudhunagar District.) 1. When the matter was called on 17.02.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 01.03.2016 under the caption "for dismissal". Even today there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for default. No costs....
Abuthahir Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to alter the FIR by impleading the proposed accused in Cr.No.551 of 2015 on the file of the respondent No.2 by considering his representation dated 05.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to alter the FIR by impleading the proposed accused in Cr.No.551 of 2015 on the file of the respondent No.2 by considering his representation dated 05.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.551 of 2015 on 22.09.2015 under Sections 294(b), 420, 506(ii) r/w Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act against one Sivasubramanian and Seeman. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though involvement of one Tirupathi has been stated in the ...
Azhagiri Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in S.C.No.118 of 2010 dated 29.10.2010.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.118 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore @ Tiruppur. He stood charged for offences under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 29.10.2010, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is as ...
S. Anbu @ Anbalagan Vs. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Stat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take departmental proceedings against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013(6) CTC 353.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take departmental proceedings against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353. 2. It may be necessary to state the bare facts for deciding the issue in this writ petition: i) The petitioner gave a complaint dated 24.11.2015 to the respondent police and sought a direction from this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)22782 of 2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the 4th respondent to register an FIR on his complaint dated 24.11...
M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of the O.S.Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 29.12.2015 made in O.A.Nos.489 and 490 of 2013 in C.S.No.442 of 2013 on the file of original side of this Court.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. A suit has been filed by the appellants praying for a decree of declaration qua the Deeds of Conveyance favouring the first respondent dated 21.09.2012 duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Mylapore, as also for permanent injunction restraining from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled properties. Along with the plaint, two applications were filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These applications have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.12.2015. 2. The facts leading to the litigation are that the original plaintiff / appellant primarily engaged in carrying on business of publication of Daily Newspaper ''Deccan Ch...
R. Vasanthi Vs. R. Venkatasubramanian and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.6701 of 2015 in O.S.No.3254 of 2012 passed by the learned XVI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai dated 04.11.2015.) 1. The submissions made by Mr.C.S.R.Williams, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel on record for the petitioner are heard. Copy of the impugned order and the copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers and also the grounds of revision are perused. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.3254 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent is none other than her brother. The second respondent is none other than her mother and respondents 3 to 5 are the sisters of the petitioner. Admittedly, a release deed was executed by Ragupathy, the father of the petitioner/ plaintiff and father of...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
P.N. Prakash, J. 1. A serious illness that plaques our majesty requires medication through this order. 2. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.1.2016 for the ffence punishable under Section 306 IPC in Cr.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3. One Sankarasubbu committed suicide, in connection with which the respondent Police egistered a case in Cr.No.109 of 009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation it came to light that one Narmadha and Dharmaraj had abetted the ommission of offence, and that, Police arrested armadha (A-1) and altered the section from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC. Eventually, Narmadha (A-1) was eleased on bail, but Dharmaraj (A-2) is absconding. he Police completed investigation and filed final report in P.R.C.No.18 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, wherein harmaraj is shown as an absconding accused. 4. ...
P. Indu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and her husband Prabhakaran.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and her husband Prabhakaran. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that on the complaint lodged by Angaiarkanni / mother of the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2016 for Woman Missing on 02.03.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in love with one Prabhakaran, who belongs to a different community and since her parents resisted the marriage, she has eloped with the said Prabhakaran and has got married to him on 02.03.2016. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court directs the petiti...