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.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.1999 made in A.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.03.1998 made in O.S.No.1139 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem. ) 1. The Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.1999 made in A.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.03.1998 made in O.S.No.1139 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. This Second Appeal arises from O.S.No.1139 of 1996, praying to set aside the order passed by the second defendant, by his order, in LR.No.AR/OandM/MYR/I.A./file RPS/D 387, 92-93, dated 19.03.1993 / 22.03.1993 as void and consequently, restrain the defendants from disconnecting the service connection. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the first appellate ...
Vandimalayan Vs. The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, E4 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused, in Sessions Case.84 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of his child. By judgement dated 28.6.2005, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The appellant is the husband of P.W.1. They had four children. The last child was a male, by name, Madhan. They were all residing in Sathya Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. On 15.5.2014, in the evening, the accused took Madhan (the deceased) out of his house under the guise of taking him to the bazaar, to get him bajji. But he did not return for ...
S. Calvince Jerome Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kanyakumari Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(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 on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33856142537/2013-14 dated 11.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the application dated 15.10.2015 filed by the petitioner under Section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and pass fresh assessment order on the basis of the returns submitted within such time as directed by this Court granting to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass such 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 on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33856142537/2014-15 dated 11.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the application dated 15.10....
R.A. Karunambal and Another Vs. Loganathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2012 made in I.A.No.567 of 2011 in O.S.No.193 of 2008, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.) 1. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.S.Thangavel and Mr.S.Subramanian , learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The procedure is meant to facilitate the ends of justice and not to defeat the same. The present case is a classic example of a procedural battle that has driven the Petitioners to file the present Revision Petition. In O.S.No.193 of 2008 was filed before the Subordinate Court Judge, Dharapuram, by the present Revision Petitioners i.e., R.A.Karunambal and Kavinkumar and also by Latha Rani against Arumugam, who is the husband of R.A.Karunambal and the father of Kavinkumar and Latha Rani. Loganathan who was the power agent of Arumugam was impleaded as the 2nd Defendant and Duraisamy, the subseq...
Chinnapillai Vs. The State by The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.90/2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC. By judgment dated 30.09.2013, the Trial Court convicted him for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant 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 Mr.Muniraj. The accused is a resident of Vinayagapuram Village in Krishnagiri District. His wife is one MRs. Mangammal. The deceased also hailed from the same village. For quite some time, the deceased and MRs. Mangammal, had developed illicit relationship. On coming to know the said fact, the accused took exception to the deceased and warned him to stop all his conn...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
S. Sundar, J. 1. The Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.(MD)No.4460 of 2016 in W.A.(MD)Nos.702 of 2016 has been filed praying to grant an Ad-Interim Injunction, restraining the respondents from in any way taking over the possession / Management of the Kazimar Pallivasal, Madurai in furtherance of G.O(D) No.04, Backward Classes Department and Minority Welfare Department, dated 13.01.2016. 2. The Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.(MD)No.4461 of 2016 in W.A.(MD)Nos.703 of 2016 has been filed praying to grant an Ad-Interim Stay of operation of the impugned Resolution of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.13575/02/Aa8 / Madurai, dated 30.12.2015 and the consequent impugned notification in No.V1-3(I)/21/2016, dated 15.02.2016 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24.02.2016. 3. The appellant, who is unsuccessful in W.P.(MD)No.2705 of 2016 of 2016, has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2705 of 2016, challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Secretary, State of Tamil Na...
C. Panneerselvam Vs. S. Bakkiyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 317 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in C.A.No.120 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem. ) 1. The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition praying for condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Petition in SR.No.8160 of 2016 against the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.120 of 2012. 2. It transpires that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused had filed C.A.No.120 of 2012 before the Appellate Court being aggrieved against the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem in S.T.C.No.306 of 2009, whereby and wherein, in respect of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and...
Babu and Another Vs. The State by, The Inspector of Police, Salem Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment dated 22.11.2013 passed in SC.No.119/2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A1 and A2 in SC.No.119/2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem District. A1 stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and A2 stood charged for the offence u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. By judgment dated 22.11.2013, the Trial Court convicted them for the aforesaid offences and sentenced each of the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are 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 Mr.Saravanan. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the brother and wife of the deceased respectively. The deceas...
N. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India rep. by the General Manager Southern R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order Dated 26.08.2015 passed in O.A.No.310/01067/2014 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal-Madras Bench, the third respondent herein and quash the same and direct the first respondent to subject the petitioner to physical endurance test for the Group D Post of Substitute Helper.) K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the final order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, made in O.A/310/01067/2014 dated 26.08.2014 wherein the petitioner had sought for a direction to the first respondent to subject him to physical endurance test for Group D Post of Substitute Helper Grade-II. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed apprenticeship in the Trade of Turner at Engineering Workshop of Southern Railway. He is a physically challenged person with disability of 55% and he belongs to SC Commun...
Sheik Madhani Lafir Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 11.03.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3808 of 2015 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, Chennai (in short the learned ACMM EO-I) dismissing the petition to drop the proceedings.) 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.3808 of 2015 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-1, Emgore, Chennai. 2. The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-1, Egmore, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P. No.3808 of 2015 dated 11.03.2016 in R.R.No.22 of 2009 (filed by the Petitioner/Accused), at paragraph 5, had observed as under: 5.Point:- "This petition is filed by the Petitioner to drop the proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner stated that he was arrested by the respondent on 2.8.2009 for an alleged off...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »