Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
Thangavel Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C.No.62 of 2010 dated 26.04.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole Accused in S.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302, 307 of IPC [Two counts] and 309 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 26.04.2011, convicted the appellant under all three charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 307 of IPC [Two counts] ; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 30...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Vs. The Inspector General of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to 1 to 4 herein to issue suitable orders to the 5th respondent herein not to harass the petitioner and to take suitable action on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 07.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to 1 to 4 herein to issue suitable orders to the 5th respondent herein not to harass the petitioner and to take suitable action on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 07.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, who would submit that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is pending against this petitioner and the same was not closed. 3. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!South Indian Music Companies Vs. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring Sections 11, 12, 31 and 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957, Rule 3 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, and the Copyright Board Salaries and Allowances and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other Members Rules, 2014, as ultra vires Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 50, 245 and 300-A of the Constitution of India in so far as this petitioner is concerned.) M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The petitioner association, having its members consisting of various music companies spreading over southern part of Peninsula, has laid a challenge to the provisions contained in Sections 11, 12, 31 and 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957, Rule 3 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, Copyright Board Salaries and Allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other Members Rules, 2014 and the constitution of the Search cum Selection Committee meant for its recommend...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Vs. The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 27.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 279 and 304(a) IPC in C.C.No.179 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 on various dates and the accused did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case, the accused filed an application C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recaIl of the prosecution witnesses, which was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.01.2016, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Cour...
Tag this Judgment!A. Palanisamy Vs. Savithiri and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharmapuri to number the application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in R.E.P.No.77 of 2011 in O.S.No.84 of 2008.) 1. The first respondent herein has filed a suit against the second respondent in O.S.No.84 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri, seeking the relief of specific performance, based upon the unregistered sale agreement dated 15.05.2004. The suit was decreed on 29.09.2008 in favour of the first respondent. Later on, the first respondent has filed an Execution Petition in R.E.P.No.77 of 2011. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he and his wife had purchased the suit property and other properties from the daughters of the second respondent. 3. The second respondent had executed the settlement deed in favour of the revision petitioner's vendors(daughters of the second respondent) on 19.10.2004. Later on, the r...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy @ Narayanan and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.119 of 1997 dated 29.11.2011.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are Accused Nos.2 to 12 in S.C.No.119 of 1997 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. Against all the twelve accused, the trial court framed charges under various penal provisions of Indian Penal code on 06.02.1998. Subsequently, the trial court, after due notice to both parties, altered the charges on 03.08.2011. Thus, all the twelve accused stood charged as detailed below:- ad>Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed1A1 to A12U/s.147 of IPC2A1 to A12U/s.148 of IPC3A1 to A12U/s.452 of IPC4A3U/s.326 of IPC5A8U/s.326 of IPC6A1 to A12U/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC [Two counts]7A1 to A12U/s.506(ii) of IPC The 1st Accused was one Mr.Saleem, Son of Khader. He died during trial and, theref...
Tag this Judgment!N. Suganthi Vs. The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.730 of 2015 dated 13.8.2015 and set aside the same direct the respondents to produce the detenu, S.Nareshkumar, s/o.Subramani, aged about 31 years, presently detained in Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai, 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, S.Nareshkumar, aged 31 years, son of Subramani, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in BCDFGISSSV No.730 of 2015 dated 13.8.2015, 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.P.G. Sundaram and Another Vs. Indu Vedamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer:-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram to process the petition presented by the petitioners on 23.11.2015 in I.A.No.Nil of 2016 in SR.No.11893 of 2015 in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram so as to number the same and proceed with in accordance with law.) We do not want to be branded as criminals, especially, when we are happy to be known as the law abiding citizens - so saying the father-in-law and mother-in-law (revision petitioners) of the respondent / daughter-in-law filed an application before the Sub Court, Tambaram, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of taking inventory of the articles, as described in the schedule to the petition and to place them to the custody of the Court, for passing suitable order for due return of those articles to the parties concerned. 1.1. When the Honourable Supreme Court pointe...
Tag this Judgment!Loganathan Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Palladam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore, at Tiruppur, dated 17.02.2011, made in S.C.No.210 of 2010.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.210 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 17.02.2011, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and no fine was imposed. 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 follows:- (a)The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Muthulakshmi. The accused is her husband. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. The appellant and his wife have two children. The appellant al...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Vs. Pothi Raj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 21.07.2010, made in I.A.No.350 of 2010 in O.S.No.106 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 21.07.2010, made in I.A.No.350 of 2010 in O.S.No.106 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner filed the Suit in O.S.No.106 of 2008 for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent filed written statement and contesting the suit and trial was commenced. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and marked documents. She was cross-examined. The respondent filed I.A.No.350 of 2010 for impounding Ex.A3, which is an agreement of partition and to delete the evidence of the petitioner, with regard to the said document and her marriage. According...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »