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.
S. Indira Gandhi Vs. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2015, dated 17.11.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, in Crime No.20 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent, dated 16.10.2014, within the time stipulated.) 1. The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking set aside of the impugned order, dated 17.11.2015, passed in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent Police. 3. It is seen that the petitioner herein is the Chair-Person of Tamil Nadu Child Welfare Committee, Government Observation Home, Tiruchirappalli, and that she had lodged a complaint against the second respondent herein, who is the Superintendent of Child Observation Home, Trichy, alleging that he had misb...
J. Jayakumar Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 397 (3) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2016 dated 2/3/2016 and set aside the conditional order in respect of execution of surety.) 1. The Petitioner/Accused has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, as against the order, dated 2/3/2016, passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. 2. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, while passing an order, on 2/3/2016, in Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2016, filed by the Petitioner/Accused, at paragraph 3, had observed the following:- Admittedly, in this case, the case property is lying in the Police Station premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court views, it is of no use to keep the case property in the police station premises for a long period. Further for prolonged detention, the condition of the case property is li...
P. Govindan and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give permission to the petitioner to conduct a Cultural Programme in the event of Senaigoundanur Arulmighu Sri Mahamariamman Koil Thiruvizha, on 22.04.2016, at Omallur Taluk, Salem District, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 13.04.2016.) 1. Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Senaigoundanur Arulmighu Sri Mahamariamman Koil Thiruvizha, on 22.04.2016, at Omallur Taluk, Salem District, the petitioner made a representation, dated 13.04.2016, to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondent. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submi...
The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Transport Corporation, Madurai Vs. R. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Award made in MCOP.No.48 of 1996 dated 31.01.2005 on the file of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Periyakulam.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award made in MCOP.No.48 of 1996, dated 31.01.2005, on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Periyakulam. 2. This Court by order dated, 22.02.2016, dismissed the CMA(MD).No.1963 of 2013 and CRP.No.1142 of 2003 arising out of the same accident. 3. The appellant is the first respondent in MCOP.No.48 of 1996. The first respondent filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 4. According to the first respondent, on 26.07.1992, while he was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant, Transport Corporation, bearing Regn.No. TN 59N 0061, the said bus was driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner ...
T. Rajkumar and Another Vs. The Director of Tamil Nadu Schools, Educat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(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 relating to the proceedings of the suspension order in O.Mu.No.94594/M/E3/2011 dated 22.11.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first respondent to incorporate the date of birth as 04.03.1991 as per birth certificate issued by the fourth respondent in the place of 04.03.1990 found in the petitioner's Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 05.06.2006.) Common Order 1. The above two writ petitions have been filed by the brothers seeking for alteration of date of birth in the School records as per the Birth Certificate issued by the Department. 2. According to them, their Date of Birth is 04.03.1991 and 12.05.1992 respectively as per the birth certificate issued. But in the School records, it has been wrongly mentioned as 04.03.1990 and 05.05.1992 respectively. Therefore, they sought for...
A. Siddique Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders in accordance with law, the application for interim direction in the Appeal under Section 113(A) (6) of The Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 24.03.2016 expeditiously in accordance with law.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the building at Door No.1/509-A, Pallavaram, Thoraipakkam Radial Road, Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 97 and put up a construction of ground + 3 floor. The first respondent called for application under Section 113A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act , 1971 (for short 'the Act') for all the buildings structurally completed on or before 28.02.1999 but the same was not availed by him, as the fee was exorbitant. Subsequently, ...
M. Subramani Vs. S. Velu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer in CMA(MD).No. 1001 and 1002 of 2014: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.06.2014 in I.A.No. 15 of 2014 and I.A.No.30 of 2014 respectively in O.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram. Prayer in CRP(MD).No. 1892 of 2014: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.06.2014 made in I.A.No. 30 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / revision petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these appeals as well as revision. To that effect the learned counsel for the appellant / revision petitioner produced a memo signed by the appellant / revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant / revision petitioner has also made an endorsement to that ...
P. Muthaiah Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to remove the third respondent's name from the legal heirs certificate issued by the second respondent and joint patta No.5868 with regard to the property Pallapatti village S.No.638/1C, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. As the petitioner has already filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of legal heirs certificate issued by the second respondent and joint patta No.5868 with regard to the property in Pallapatti village S.No.638/1C, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view the above, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Bharat Raj Sanklecha Vs. M/s. Land Mark Promoters and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in M.P.No.92 of 2011 dated 05.06.2013 and thereby, direct the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate to take the complaint on file and proceed further in accordance with law.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement to the effect that the Petitioner prays leave to withdraw this Criminal Revision Petition. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the present Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Rathinam Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the order and judgment dated 12.03.2013 made in SC.No.45/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellantis the sole accused in SC.No.45/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for the offences u/s.302, 201 read with 302 IPC. By judgment dated 12.03.2013, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and convicted him u/s.201 read with 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant/accused 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 Mrs.Banumathi. The appellant/accused is her husband. They were residing together as husband an...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »