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. Prabhu Vs. State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madura ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai and quash the same and to pass such further or other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai and quash the same and to pass such further or other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the final report, this petitioner got married to the defacto complainant's daughter and thereafter, they got estranged. While so, on 13.06.2015 at 06.35am, when the defacto complainant was going f...
The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records Department, Tiruchir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.4.2014 made in W.P.No.7047 of 2007.) V. Bharathidasan, j. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7047 of 2007 (O.A.No.4927 of 2007) allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. 2. We have heard Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. 3. The writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the order of removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant, subsequently promoted as Field Surveyor during 1985, while he was working in the above post, he was absented from duty from 9.12.2001. Hence, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated by the appellant and charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 7.3.1994. For the above charge memo, the respondent submitted his explanation that he was absent from ...
Abirami Vs. Vallarasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 96 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 25.09.2015 passed in C.A.No.58 of 2014 on the file of the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. There is no serious objection on behalf of the Respondent and no counter is filed. 3. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the delay of 96 days in the subject matter in issue is condoned and accordingly, the Crl.M.P.No.3937 of 2016 in Crl.R.C.Sr.No.2028 of 2016 is allowed....
P. Balakrishnan Vs. A. Safia Bivi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in I.A.No. 77 of 2009 in O.S.No. 308/2002 dated 20.08.2010 pending on the file of the Additional Sub Judge No.1, Cuddalore and quash the same.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed I.A.No. 77 of 2009 in O.S.No. 308/2002 dated 20.08.2010 by the Additional Sub Judge No.1, Cuddalore. 2. The defendant in O.S.No. 308 of 2002 is the petitioner herein and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit for passing a preliminary mortgage decree by directing the defendant therein, to deposit the decree amount and on his failure to deposit the amount, to pass a final decree for sale of mortgaged property, through Court and for further orders. An ex-parte decree was passed on 22.12.2003, in the suit. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner/defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No...
R.G. Subbarayalu Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Principal Secr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 217-L of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, against the order passed by the first respondent under Government Letter (g) No.630/eep.1/2015, dated 27.10.2015.) 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the first respondent under Government Letter (g) No.630/eep.1/2015, dated 27.10.2015. 2. Facts of the case: (i) The petitioner is the owner of the property in T.S.Nos.33 and 34, Door No.17/361, Suba Guest House, Bern Hill Road, Kodaikanal. The second respondent issued notice dated 07.07.2015, bearing reference No.UAC 2861/2007/F1, calling upon the petitioner to produce the approved plan and if the same is not produced, the construction being put up by the petitioner would be construed as unauthorized construction and called upon the petitioner to remove all the construction materials and stop using the building and demolish the unauthorized construction within 30 days. The second respon...
Subbulakshmi Vs. State Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Ti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case as against the accused on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 16.12.2015 on the file of the respondents within stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case as against the accused on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 16.12.2015 on the file of the respondents within stipulated time. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint dated 16.12.2015 given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and was closed on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the respondent police for enquiry. 4. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the ver...
Rajivgandhi Vs. The State Represented by Inspector of Police, AWPS Jan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed in Spl. S.C.No.15 of 2015 dated 18.9.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.) The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Spl. S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment. 2. In the said Court, after trial, he was convicted and sentenced as under:- ad>ConvictionSentenceSection 354C IPCR.I for one year and fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d 2 months S.ISection 450 IPCR.I for 3 years and fine Rs.2,000/-, i/d 6 months S.ISection 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)R.I for 10 years and fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 1 year R.I All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. PWs.1 and 6 are daughters of PWs.2 and 3. PW-6 is adult, while PW-1 ...
Natchammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 11.03.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and also contemporaneous wound certificate, if any, to lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 11.03.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or drop action otherwise...
Thyssenkrupp Industries India Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(Prayer: WP No. 3100 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in communication No. TANCEM/CO/MM/Expansion of ACW/2016 dated 18.01.2016 from the second respondent in declaring the petitioner as L2 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to evaluate the bid as per law and the tender conditions taking into consideration the representation dated 26.10.2015 regarding the calculation error made by the petitioner. WP No. 7638 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent's impugned proceedings bearing Letter No.TANCEF/CO/Proj/ Ari.Cem.Plant Expan./LOA-Main Machin/2015-16 dated 20.012016 the Letter of Award (Intent) awarding to the fourth respondent the Tender No.TANCEM/MM/15/ PROJ/ARI.CEM.PLANT EXPAN/2015 dated 06.05.2015 and quash the sa...
C. Buvaneshwari Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
(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 dated 15.03.2016 lodged by the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the complaint dated 15.03.2016 lodged by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.6 of 2016 on 14.04.2016 for offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) 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....