Chennai Court April 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.
State through B. Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor Vs. O. Raja and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.828 of 2016 in S.C.No.112 of 2015, dated 07.04.2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and consequently to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, to array the four police officials as additional accused.) 1. The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking set aside of the Order, dated 07.04.2016, passed in Cr.M.P.No.828 of 2016 in S.C.No.112 of 2015, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, to array four more police officials as additional accused. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the accused in S.C.No.112 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Ju...
Balasubramanyan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome Che ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of declaration to declare that the registration of the Deed of Revocation of the Gift Deed dated 23.07.2013 registered as Doc.No.363 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent in respect of the property bearing S.No.106/11H3 with an extent of 3270 square foot of land, equivalent to 7 1/2 cents on West, out of total extent of 15 cents at Kalakudy Revenue Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District is illegal and against the provisions of the Registration Act and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of declaration to declare that the registration of the Deed of Revocation of the Gift Deed dated 23.07.2013 registered as Doc.No.363 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent in respect of the property bearing S.No.106/11H3 with an extent of 3270 square foot of land, equiv...
Bagyamma Vs. Ramachandrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.03.1999 made in A.S.No.12 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.12.1996 made in O.S.No.26 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.) The Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.03.1999 made in A.S.No.12 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur. 2. This Second Appeal arises from O.S.No.26 of 1993, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent / plaintiff. Both the trial court as well the lower appellate court, decreed the suit. 3. In this Judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in the suit. 4. The facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal need to be stated in brief. The plaintiff's father Bethaoppiah along with his brother sold 29 1/4 cents in S.F.No.23 of Halekota village, out of 1.17 a...
Loganathan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to investigate expeditiously in their Station in Crime No.601 of 2015 and lay a final report within a stipulated time limit as fixed by this Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to investigate expeditiously in their Station in Crime No.601 of 2015 and lay a final report within a stipulated time limit as fixed by this Court. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on the complaint given by one RajaramHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint dated 09.04.2014 given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in CSR No.193 of 2014 was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 13.04.2016. A copy of the closure report is furnis...
S. Sureshkumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 3rd respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 26.11.2015 and further direct him to investigate the matter in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 26.11.2015 and further direct him to investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner sent a complaint dated 26.11.2015 by post to the respondent police alleging that one Ida Suguna Mary and others had collected Rs.2,00,000/- from him on the promise of getting a job for his brother in Canada. The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai conducted enquiry on the complaint by summoning both parties on 10.12.2015. During the enquiry, it appears that the petitioner had not paid Rs.2,00,000/- to Ida Sugana Mary, but only Rs.1,00,000/- to Ida Suguna Mary, which she had agreed to return to th...
Arumugam, Proprietor, Globe Tailors and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu Thai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2015 made in O.S.No.9581 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) Issues are framed, so that, no party to the litigation is taken by surprise/shock during trial; but here is a case, during judgment, additional issues have been framed, thus, taking/putting the parties by surprise/shock - the validity of the same is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 are the revision petitioners. The plaintiff and Defendants 4 and 5 are the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The plaintiff, i.e. Tamil Nadu Thaiyal Kalai Tholilalar Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, B.S.Mani and Treasurer K.M.Basha, filed the suit in O.S.No.9581 of 2010, for declaration that the plaintiff's Union Office Bearers, elected by General Body Meeting held on 12.08.2010, (including Mr.T.V.S.Mani, as its General Secretary) i...
K. Ravi and Another Vs. State rep. by the inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, to dispose of the S.C.No.90 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible within a stipulated time by appreciating the above said facts and circumstances. Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, made in Crl.M.P.No.2405 of 2015, dated 20.01.2016 in S.C.No.90 of 2015.) Common Order: 1. As the factual matrix is intermixed in both the petitions, they were mixed together, heard together and are being disposed of together today. 2. In Crl.O.P.No.6494 of 2016, the de facto complainant in Crime No.2074 of 2009 registered by Dharmapuri Town Police, seeks direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, to expeditiously conduct the trial of the Sessions Case in S.C.No.90 of ...
The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Educa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the order dated 16.04.2010 in W.P.No.33784 of 2006.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. The State has filed this Appeal as against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.33784 of 2006 dated 16.04.2010. 2. The respondent/petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Adult Education Unit, Thiruvallur, under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules dated 31.12.1981 through Employment Exchange. After expiry of three years of service, she was ousted from service for want of vacancy on 31.03.1984. However, once again, the respondent/ petitioner was re-appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.06.1984. But her service was not regularised on the ground that she was not in service on 25.06.1984 as per G.O.Ms.No.996 dated 22.02.1984. As there was a ban imposed on appointment and the respondent/petitioner was reappointed on 29.06.1984 by the Chief Educational Officer. The grievance of...
U. Kannan Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirunelvel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District to expedite the trial in C.C.No.54 of 2014 on its file and complete the same within the time limit as fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District to expedite the trial in C.C.No.54 of 2014 on its file and complete the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that a charge sheet in this case has been filed in the year 2016 and also number of cases pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, this Court cannot issue a direcction to the Magistrate to conplete the trial in a time bound manner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court and give evidence. Learned Judicial Mag...
S. Rajarathinam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reframe the syllabus from the next academic year so as to ensure that students have covered all the 1,330 couplets of Thirukkural by the time they step out of schools by including it as a separate subject for the academic years from at least VI to XII and pass the same as a policy decision of the Government.) 1. This writ petitioner, urging a personal cause has aroused a noble thought by seeking a writ of Mandamus to modify the syllabus in the schools for students between VI to XII Standard so as to ensure that they are acquainted and taught thoroughly with all the 1,330 couplets of Thirukkural so as to mould them morally sound. 2. The contention of the writ petitioner, a retired Government Official, is that in the recent times, the moral values have declined in the society. That apart, the general behaviour among youngesters in the society is lackin...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »