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.
R. Lakshminarayanan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to implement the communication dated 11.02.2015 sent by the Directorate of Tamil Development and to take appropriate steps to teach Tamil Language to Non Tamils throughout India by way of starting Correspondence Course through Thanjavur Tamil Univrsity within the time stipulated by this Court.) (Prayer amended vide Court order dated 26.11.2015 in M.P. NO. 1/2015) N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. What is the use of conducting World Tamil Conferences spending crores and crores of rupees, without serving for the cause of the language and what is the use of calling Tamil as a Classical Language, unless it is passed on to the next generation by Tamils? 2. Tamil is an ancient classical language, which has got a rich heritage and literature. The well-known Sangam Literature dates back to 300 BC to AD 300. The earliest Tamil literature, Tholgappiyam, which is an early work...
R. Kandasamy and Others Vs. The Commissioner and Special, Nungambakkam ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a (i) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Head of the Department of Structural Engineering in Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College, Palani by strictly following the seniority cum merit and in accordance with law (WP.(MD)No.9860 of 2007); (ii) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 19369/2009/Z3 dated 29.4.2009 and the third respondent in his proceedings in Letter No.1140/A4/2009 dated 15.4.2009, quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as an Assistant as per Rules and confer all consequential benefits (WP(MD)No.6291 of 2009); and (iii) Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in anyway filling up the post of Head of Department in all the Departments in the second respondent college (WP(MD)No.7640 of 20...
Srinivasan Vs. Anusiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 714 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition against the order in M.C.No.25 of 2012 dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It transpires that in Crl.M.P.No.2929 of 2016 in Crl.R.C.No.11051 of 2016, this Court on 16.03.2016 at para 5 had passed a conditional order which runs as follows: ... this petition will be allowed, on deposit of 50% of the arrears of maintenance as on today, as per the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri dated 27.12.2013 made in M.C.No.25 of 2012, on or before 06.04.2016. and directed the matter to be listed on 06.04.2016 for reporting compliance. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 16.04.2016, this Court passed an order to post the matter 'after two weeks' for filing compliance report. 4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court...
Govindasamy and Others Vs. The State by, The Inspector of Police, Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in SC.No.80/2012 dated 30.09.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A1 to A3 in SC.No.80/2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. They stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC. By judgment dated 30.09.2013, the Trial Court convicted them for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced each of them 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 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.Chinnaraji. He was residing at Veeramalai, Nilagirikottai Village, in Krishnagiri District. He had 6 acres of agricultural lands. A1 is the owner of the...
R. Selvalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner and to pass other or further orders.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Nathu K. Patel Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the basis of the complaint given by one Periyasamy against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 4. The petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against arrest. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
M. Jahir Hussain Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint preferred to the 1st respondent by the petitioner dated 17.3.2016 against the proposed accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.147 148 294(b) 341 and 506(i) of IPC.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint preferred to the 1st respondent by the petitioner dated 17.3.2016 against the proposed accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.147 148 294(b) 341 and 506(i) of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 17.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.106 of 2016 on 02.04.2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 380 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statem...
Pachaiyappan @ Ramesh Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgement, dated 30.09.2013, passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, in S.C.No.86 of 2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.86 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, at Poonamallee. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 30.09.2013, 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.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Parasuraman. He used to visit the house of the accused in a friendly manner. In due course of time, the accused had a ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transportation (Villupuram) Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decretal order dated 22.01.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.370 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) at Cuddalore.) 1. The Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. On 24.12.2008, when the the respondent/claimant boarded the appellant's bus bearing Reg.No.TN-32-N-1431 to go to Sethiathope Hospital, on finding that her mother was not available in the bus, she made a request to the conductor to stop the bus and when the bus was stopped, near Rice Mill situated near Pari Middle School, Veeramudayanatham, she was getting down, the driver of the bus moved it suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the claimant lost her control and fell down. Claiming compensation, the claimant had approached the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensat...
Gowrishankar Vs. The State by, The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in SC.No.57/2012 dated 23.08.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A1 to A4 in SC.No.57/2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The Trial Court framed as many as five charges against the accused as detailed below:- ad>Rank of the AccusedChargesA1 to A4498[A] IPCA1 to A4120[B] IPCA1302 IPCA2302 read with 34 IPCA4201 IPC By judgment dated 23.08.2013, the Trial Court convicted all the four accused for the offence u/s.498-A IPC and convicted A1 for the offence u/s.302 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused from the rest of the charges. For the offence u/s.498-A IPC, the Trial Court sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Trial Court sentenced A1 to undergo imprisonment for lif...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »