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.
Durairaj Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, dated 09.04.2010, made in S.C.No.245 of 2006.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.245 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpat District. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 09.04.2010, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole 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 Parimala. The accused is her husband. P.Ws.1 and 2 are their children. They were all residing together at Kandan Chavadi...
Dharmaraj Vs. The Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, Kanya ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members in any manner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members in any manner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that there are two criminal cases registered against the petitioner's son and therefore, the police had gone to the house of the petitioner in search of his son. 3. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the usual order of Not to Harass cannot be passed in this case and the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. During interrogation, he shall not be harassed and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against arrest....
Nagalingam Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 11.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 11.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It appears that the 3rd respondent is none other than the son of the petitioner and he is causing trouble to the petitioner. The petitioner has sent a complaint dated 11.02.2016 to the respondents, in which, a petition enquiry is pending. 4. Under such circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to enquire into the complaint and take action in accordance with law and give protection to the petitioner, who is a Senior...
Sethu Thamilarasan Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to conduct a fair and proper investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.372 of 2014 dated 13.05.2014 pending on the file of the respondent police within a stipulated time fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to conduct a fair and proper investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.372 of 2014 dated 13.05.2014 pending on the file of the respondent police. 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 in Crime No.372 of 2014 has been completed and a final report has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil on 16.06.2014 itself and the same has not yet been take on file. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Sangeetha Vs. Jitendra Bhandari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the common judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 made in F.C.O.P.Nos.1942 of 2008 and 218 of 2011 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. Aggrieved by the order of dissolution of marriage dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in F.C.O.P.Nos.1942 of 2008 and 218 of 2011, the appellant/wife has come up with the above appeals. 2. Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, the appeals are taken up for disposal by a common judgment. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The marriage between the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife was solemnized on 28.06.1998 at Vijayashree Mahal, Anna Nagar, Chennai, as per customary rites. They both belong to orthodox Jain community. From the wedlock, they have two male children. The respondent/husband is running a shop dealing with Electrical accessories and the appe...
Sudalai Muthu Nadar Vs. State Represented by The Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent Nod.2 and 3 to expedite the investigation in Crime No.204 of 2013 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District and to file a final report within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent Nod.2 and 3 to expedite the investigation in Crime No.204 of 2013 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District and to file a 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 in Crime No.204 of 2013 has been completed and a final report has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2016. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Orig...
P.N. Ramesh Babu and Others Vs. M. Cheemaichamy, The Deputy Superinten ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from passing any orders from reopening the Arulmigu Sikkumallammal Temple, Kattunayakkanpatti, Theni District to fix a date for worship and celebrate the temple festival by violating the customary rights and practice.W.P.(MD)No.3880 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for all records of the second respondent made on 19.2.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission and provide necessary protection to the petitioner and their community members to worship and celebrate their annual festival at Arulmighu Sikkumallammal Temple, Kattunayaganpatti, Theni District in the month of February or thereafter by giving permission giving 7 dyas time for the petitioner to observe fasting penance a...
G. Balasubramanian Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in respect of the show cause notice issued by him in Proc.No.Matg/D1, dated 29.08.2015 and quash the same by holding that the Rules 7 and 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officer (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules 2009 of the 1st respondent as Unconstitutional and Ultravires.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Life Insurance Corporation states that in view of the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.2006 of 2014 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Sonia Bhaskar and another) decided on 03.08.2015, the order under challenge be treated as withdrawn and a fresh order be passed after hearing the petitioner. 2. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Judgment of the Allahabad High Cou...
V. Vellaisamy Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Madura ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with Crime No.166 of 2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in connection with Crime No.166 of 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by one Muniyandi, a case in Crime No.166 of 2015 has been registered and investigation is in progress. 3. Under such circumstances, once a regular FIR has been registered, the question of 'not to harass' will not arise, because the expression 'harassment' is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria. If a 'not to harass order is passed in this case, where a regular FIR has been registered, a notice by the Investigating Officer under Section 41A can also...
Allapitchai Vs. M. Abdulraheem
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to withdraw the case in C.C.No.12 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar and transfer the same to any other Judicial Magistrate Court, Chennai.) 1. This petition has been filedto withdraw the case in C.C.No.12 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar and transfer the same to any other Judicial Magistrate Court, Chennai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the complainant and the accused. 3. It is seen that the complainant lodged a private complaint in C.C.No.12 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It is the contention of the accused that when he went to the Court in connection with the said case, he was waylaid by the opposite party and was assaulted on 17.03.2016. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »