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.
Thesima Begam and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the trial in the case has begun and the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4. 3. Under such circumstances, this Court will not interfere, when the trial in the case has commenced. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioers to raise all the points before the Trial Court. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with. 5. A...
J. Deivani and Another Vs. M. Vanitha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to prefer the above Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.12.2011 in I.A.No.17337 of 2011 in O.S.No.13788 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instruction submits that this Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous and the Civil Revision petition is to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement in the Civil Revision petition to this effect. 2. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed as one having become infructuous. No costs....
T. Muniyathurai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his namely Nagarani wife based on the repeated false and frivolous complaints lodged by one S.Ganapathy Pattar/ the defacto complainant.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his namely Nagarani wife based on the repeated false and frivolous complaints lodged by one S.Ganapathy Pattar/ the defacto complainant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by one Ganapathy Pattar, petition enquiry is pending. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
Bommaiyan @ Bomma Naicker Vs. The State by, The Inspector of Police, E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode District at Bhavani, dated 30.10.2013. S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.55/2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode [Bhavani]. He stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC. By judgment dated 30.10.2013, 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.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 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.Venkitusamy. The appellant is the elder brother of the deceased. The ancestral properties were partitioned among themselves and they were doing agriculture separately in their respective land...
Pandithomas Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case based upon the petitioner's complaint dated 25.3.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case based upon the petitioner's complaint dated 25.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint dated 25.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed. A copy of the Closure Report has been filed before this Court. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Selvi @ Chennama Vs. Duraikannan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC praying to withdraw the case in HMOP.No.603 of 2015 from the file of Family Court, Madurai and transfer the same to the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai.) 1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case case in HMOP.No.603 of 2015 from the file of Family Court, Madurai and transfer the same to the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner herein is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2008, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Two male children were born in the wedlock on 27.10.2009 and 21.12.2011 respectively. Due to the dispute, both are living separately. The respondent filed HMOP.No.603 of 2015 before the Family Court, Madurai, for divorce. The petitioner filed M.C.No.446 of 2015, before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking for maintenance. 3. According to the petitioner, she ...
G. Sathyan Vs. B. Vasudevan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the impugned arbitration award dated 06.07.2011 passed by the second respondent and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue the partnership business in terms of clause 17 of the partnership deed dated 17.03.1999.) 1. This original petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the award dated 06.07.2011 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue the partnership business in terms of clause 17 of the partnership deed dated 17.03.1999. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows; 2.1) The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 entered into a partnership vide partnership deed dated 17.03.1999, through which they had agreed to run a nursing home in the name and style of Siva Subramanina Nursing Home. They also entered into another partnership deed dated 14.04.2003 by which a pharmacy was started in the name and style of Rang...
Jeevana School Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned demand notice of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 05.01.2016 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 08.02.2016, quash the same.) 1. Challenging the demand of property tax issued by the respondent Corporation, the petitionerschool is before this Court. 2. The only contention which has been raised by the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation has no jurisdiction to levy property tax for the reason that as per Section 122 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act the petitioner School is totally exempted from the purview of such tax. Further, the petitioner school has got huge buildings which are not assessed to property tax as per Section 122 (c) of the Municipal City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. They are exempted from payment of property tax and there are no other enabling prov...
Chanthirasekaran Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.750 of 2012 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.750 of 2012 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.750 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, has been registered against the petitioner/accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the respondent police, namely, Kalimuthu, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Statio...
R. Nallamuthu and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent forthwith to register an FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 13.9.2015 on the basis of the direction issued in Crl.M.P.No.5823 of 2015 on the file of the learned J.M. No.II at Nagercoil dated 15.10.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent forthwith to register an FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 13.9.2015 on the basis of the direction issued in Crl.M.P.No.5823 of 2015 on the file of the learned J.M. No.II at Nagercoil dated 15.10.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that on the complaint dated 13.09.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.135 of 2016 on 05.04.2016 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 354 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »