Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
K. Chandramoorthy Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.69 of 2010 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District, dated 25.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. No.69 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. The 2nd accused was one Sitaraman. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers. The 1st accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(B) and 302 IPC. The 2nd accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. By judgment, dated 25.04.2013, the Trial Court acquitted the 2nd accused, but, convicted the 1st accused under Sections 294(B) and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 294(B) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigor...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasath Vs. Vasantha @ Vasanthammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.212 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.212 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent /plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.212 of 2013 for declaration to declare that there is a pathway which is existing in the East end of the defendant's property upto the plaintiff's cultivating lands and consequential injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.94 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.79 of 2010 for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. At t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajeswari Vs. The Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying the road measuring 12 feet on the western side comprised in Survey No.63/4 Achchangulam Village, measuring 96 cents.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying the road measuring 12 feet on the western side comprised in Survey No.63/4 Achchangulam Village, measuring 96 cents. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate produced a proceedings dated 24.03.2016 of the Tahsildar, Vembakottai, wherein it is stated that the Government has not initiated any work to lay road on both the sites. The dispute is purely private in nature, between the petitioner and the third respondent. 3. Recording the above statements, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Dr.G.M. Kamalakumar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Industries Depart ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to recovey the land in Survey No.1149/1 and 1150/1 measuring about 9 Acres in Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi District to the legal heirs of Raju V.Ganesan in consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2013 and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to recovey the land in Survey No.1149/1 and 1150/1 measuring about 9 Acres in Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi District to the legal heirs of Raju V.Ganesan in consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2013. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the lands were acquired way-back in the year 1986 and his father died in the year 1971. The Government by G.O.No.1242, Industries Department dated 07.09.1981, segregated the land...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Manoharan Vs. Anitha R. Radhakrishanan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Election petition filed under section 80,82,83,84, 100(1)(b)(d)(iii) and (iv) and 101 of the Representation of People Act 1951, and Rules 54 and 54(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and Rule 2 of Madras High Court Election Petition Rules 1967, praying to i) declare the election of the Returned Candidate, namely the first respondent herein from No.215, Thiruchendur Assembly Constituency, Tamil Nadu, in election held on 13.04.2011 (in which results have been declared on 13.05.2011) as void; ii) order Re-scrutiny of the voting results recorded in the 210 Electronic voting Machines used for counting in No.215, Thiruchendur Assembly Constituency (Tamilnadu) in the election held on 13.05.2011. iii) order re-polling of 891 postal ballot by the voters to whom those 891 postal ballot papers have been issued by the Returning Officer No.215, Thiruchendur Assembly Constituency (Tamilnadu) in the election held on 13.05.2011, the address of which voters are with the Returning Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Anandha Raj Vs. The Superintendent of Police Pudukottai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to withdraw and transfer the case in Crime No.34 of 2015 from the file of the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent and may direct the 3rd respondent to file final report.) 1. This petition has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in Crime No.34 of 2015 from the file of the 2nd respondent to the file of the 3rd respondent and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to file final report. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the investigation in Crime No.34 of 2015 has been completed and the case has been closed as mistake of fact and a closure report has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur on 10.04.2015. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manthiram Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SPIC Nagar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to recokon the pending education loan availed for the petitioner's son in Account No.30244348231 based on his representations dated 06.03.2015, 26.12.2014 and 21.08.2015 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to recokon the pending education loan availed for the petitioner's son in Account No.30244348231 based on his representations dated 06.03.2015, 26.12.2014 and 21.08.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the bank gives details of accounts he is prepared to settle the accounts. 4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Gopal Vs. The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned resolution of the fifth respondent vide Resolution No.441 dated 15.02.2016 quash the same and consequently direct the 7th respondent herein to conduct a detailed investigation on the public auction conducted by the respondents 3 to 6 herein for leasing out of shops of Batlagundu Town Panchayat and to submit a report thereon for initiation of action in accordance with law and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.55/2015/A3 dated 15.12.2015 and the re-auction notification issued by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.55/2015/A3 dated 06.01...
Tag this Judgment!Alarmel Valli and Others Vs. The Secretary, Urban and Housing Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to demolish the unauthorised construction at Door No.232 Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 being done by 5th and 6th Respondents.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioners have focussed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to demolish the unauthorised construction at Door No.232, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 being done by 5th and 6th Respondents. 2. Summation of Facts: (i) According to the Petitioners made a representation dated 21.12.2011 followed by a telegram dated 05.01.2012 to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents complaining about the unauthorised and illegal construction at Door No.232, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Since no action was taken by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, they filed W.P.No.11235 of 2012 and this Court on 23.04.2012...
Tag this Judgment!Arockiaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to send the copy of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2015 to the Joint Director Health and Family Welfare, Theni at Periyakulam.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to send the copy of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2015 to the Joint Director Health and Family Welfare, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioenr and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The defacto complainant / petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the defacto complainant that on the complaint given by him, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.396 of 2015 against one Jesudoss and four others for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) IPC and the investigation is pending. It is also stated that Jesudoss was arrested by Police and was in custody from 20.10.2015 to 28.10.2015. 4. While so, the defact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »