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.
Murugesan and Another Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District in S.C.No.187 of 2011 dated 07.09.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in S.C.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. A1 stood charged for offences under Sections 342 and 302 of IPC; and A2 stood charged for offences under Sections 342 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. By judgement dated 07.09.2012, the trial court convicted A1 for the offence under Section and 302 of IPC and convicted A2 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A1 and A2 were acquitted of the other charge framed under Section 342 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction ...
Ellappan Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in S.C.No.90 of 2010 dated 10.08.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. One Mr.Gopal @ Rajagopal was the 2nd Accused. The trial court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 302 of IPC against A1; the second charge was under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC ; and the third charge was under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC against both A1 and A2. By judgment dated 10.08.2012, the trail court convicted A1 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five months for offence under Section 302 of...
G. Gopal and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
(Common Prayer in W.P.Nos.29553 to 29555 of 2014 :Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent G.O.Ms.No.347, Health and Family Welfare (L1) Department, dated 29.10.2014 and quash the same as ultravires to the adhoc rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' names for further promotion in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Services based on their seniority. Common Prayer in W.P.Nos.32344 to 32346 of 2014:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' names to the post of Non Medical Supervisor in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Services based on their seniority. Prayer in W.P.No.6234 of 2015:Writ Petition filed und...
N. Monikandan Vs. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Southern Railway T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Notice No.V/MD.52/NCJ/Q/15 dated 25.05.2015 issued by the respondent herein and affixed on the Notice Board of the Nagercoil Railway Station Kanyakumari District (inviting tenders for the same work that the petitioner has been doing under a valid subsisting contract) and the subsequent impugned termination order issued by the respondent in Ref.No.V/MD.52/NCJ/13-15 dated 09.06.2015 and quash the same.) When the matter is taken-up for hearing, both parties fairly submitted that as per the original terms of contract, the period of contract is over by 03.11.2015 itself. Therefore, he is not challenging the tender process. However, the only grievance of the petitioner is that during the period of contract, there is some amount due from the respondent, which may be directed to be returned by the respondent. 2. At this juncture, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›