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.
P. Hari Krishnan Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the proceedings in Cr.No.8 of 2015 and transfer the same to the file of 2nd respondent or any other investigating agency for further investigation.) 1.This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the proceedings in Cr.No.8 of 2015 and transfer the same to the file of 2nd respondent or any other investigating agency for further investigation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.8 of 2015 has been completed and a final report has also been filed for offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 465 and 468 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar on 30.03.2016 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner know...
Kathan Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith release the vehicle JCB with registration No. TN-55-P-2719 and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith release the vehicle JCB with registration No. TN-55-P-2719. 2. The only grievance is that the petitioner is ready to comply with all the requirements as contemplated in the notice. He is prepared to establish the title by producing the RC Book and all other necessary documents as the offence said to have been committed is the compoundable offence. It is submitted that there is no power vested with authority to retain the vehicle for long time unnecessarily. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court contending that he is ready to settle the amount due to the second respondent. 3. ...
Revathi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd responent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 17.02.2015 thereafter on further reminder made on 10.08.2015 and to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in accordance with law within the period stipulted by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd responent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 17.02.2015 thereafter on further reminder made on 10.08.2015 and to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that though the previous complaint dated 17.02.2015 of the petitioner was duly enquired into and the same was closed on 28.04.2015, as a follow up, the petitioner has given the present complaint dated 10.08.2015. Since petition enquiry ...
Muthukuberan Vs. The State by Inspector of Police Madhuranthakam Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.287 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalput. There were two other accused arrayed as the accused 2 and 3, who are the mother and grandmother respectively of the first accused. The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused. The first charge was against all the three accused u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the second charge was against all the three accused u/s 498(A) IPC; the third charge was against the first accused for offence u/s 302 IPC; and the fourth charge was against the accused 2 and 3 for offence u/s 302 r/w 109 IPC. By judgment dated 18.06.2012, the trial Court has acquitted the accused 2 and 3, but convicted the appellant for offence u/s 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Court acquit...
G. Arjunan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), Madurai a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 25.2.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 25.2.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 25.02.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.606 of 2016 on 02.04.2016 for an offence under Section 379 IPC. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai and Another Vs. K. Sundaramoorthy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeals as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench, dated 25.08.2006 in IT (SS) A Nos. 28 and 29/Mds/97 respectively.) N. Kirubakaran, J. The above appeals have been preferred by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.08.2006 holding that the Fixed Deposit Receipts, to the tune of Rs.13.35 lakhs, in the name of the assessee and his son and cash of Rs.20.66 lakhs seized, at the time of search in his residence, did not amount to undisclosed income. 2. The respondent assessee is a Deputy Superintending Engineer, National Highways Department, Madurai. A search was conducted under Section 132 of the I.T. Act, in the residence of the respondent, on 24.11.1995 and cash of RS. 20,66,637/- along with Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.13.35 lakhs, in the name of the assessee and his son Arunkumar, were found. After repeated notices, the assessee filed a return in HUF status and did not choose to file return in his ind...
R. Pirahasam Vs. State represented by The Superintendent of Police Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to expedite the investigation in Crime No.389 of 2003 on the file of the 2nd respondent and file final report within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to expedite the investigation in Crime No.389 of 2003 on the file of the 2nd respondent and file final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation has been completed and a closure report has already been filed on 31.01.2006 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Trichy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer in CMA(MD).No.1163 of 2015: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 made in MCOP.No.1061 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / III Additional Sub Court, Trichy.) 1. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Common Judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2014 made in MCOP.Nos.1061 of 2009, 1018 of 2009, 1038 of 2009, 1067 of 2009, 1037 of 2009, 1054 of 2009, 1030 of 2009, 1041 of 2009, 1063 of 2009, 1036 of 2009, 1047 of 2009, 1021 of 2009, 1051 of 2009, 1049 of 2009, 1065 of 2009, 1060 of 2009, 1042 of 2009, 1046 of 2009, 1053 of 2009, 1019 of 2009, 1033 of 2009, 1023 of 2009, 1044 of 2009, 1043 of 2009, 1024 of 2009, 1062 of 2009, 1040 of 2009, 1055 of 2009, 1034 of 2009, 1031 of 2009, 1066 of 2009, 1059 of 2009, 1028 of 2009, 1052 of 2009, 1050 of 2009, 1058 of 2009, 1045 of 2009, 1027 of 2009, 1039 of 2009, 1035 of 2009, 1064 of 2009, 1032 of 2009 and 1056 ...
S. Saraswathy and Another Vs. A. Elumalai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in MACTOP No.474 of 2012 dated 05.10.2013 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI-Judge), Small Causes Court at Chennai.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation made in M.C.O.P.No.474 of 2012, dated 05.10.2013 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI-Judge), Small Causes Court at Chennai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. On 05.08.2011 at about 17.00 hours, while the deceased was driving the car bearing Registration No.TN-07-BF-9580 in East Coast road near Uthandi Pudu Koil opposite to Uthandi, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-21-AH-9532 driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the car, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case was registered against the driver of the bus. 3. The claimants being t...
M. Chandrakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachetty Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the Docket Order passed in S.C.No.105 of 2012 dated 04.10.2016 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai with regard to splitting of the case towards Accused No.1, set aside the same and further direct the learned District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai to conclude the trial along with Accused No.1.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Docket Order passed in S.C.No.105 of 2012 dated 04.10.2016 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai with regard to splitting of the case towards Accused No.1, set aside the same and further direct the learned District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai to conclude the trial along with Accused No.1. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by this Court, learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai has sent a detailed report dated 11.04.2016. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »