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.
The Management, Thirunelveli District Vs. V. Arasi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's compensation Act, against the order passed by the Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli, in W.C.No.15 of 2010 (Non-fatal) dated 12.08.2014.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli, in W.C.No.15 of 2010 (Non-fatal) dated 12.08.2014. 2. The appellant is the first respondent in W.C.No.15 of 2010. After the death of Hariharsuthan, who was the first petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 herein were impleaded as petitioners 1 and 2. The third respondent is the Contractor of appellant and the second respondent in W.C. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- The deceased Hariharasuthan herein after referred as Worker was working in construction work under third respondent, who is the Contractor of the appellant. He was paid Rs.300/- per day. On 15.06.2009 at 9.30 am when he was doing work of appellant as per instruction...
Dr. Zubaida Begum Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision No.357 of 2016 is filed against the order dated 23.02.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2015 in C.C.No.260 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. Criminal Revision No.369 of 2016 is filed against the order dated 23.02.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 in in C.C.No.260 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu.) Common Order: As these Criminal Revisions are connected on factual matrix, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2016 has been directed by A1 as against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2015 in C.C.No.260 of 2014 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu), which has been filed to recall NBW without her personal appearance before the Court. 3. Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2016 is directed as against the dismissal of her Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 in C.C.No.260 of 2014 filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with her personal attendance in the ...
G. Murugesan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Koradacheri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence of imposing life imprisonment for the charges u/s 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment passed against the appellant/A.1 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in S.C.No.50 of 2008 dated 20.04.2009.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.50 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur. A.2 was one Mr.Ilayaraja, the brother of the appellant/A.1. They stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 20.04.2009, the trial Court convicted both the accused for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 has come up with th...
Prabhu @ Hamsa @ Abdul Azeez and Another Vs. State Represented by, The ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Cr.M.P.No.320 of 2016 in S.C.No.163 of 2014 dated 14.03.2016 and set aside the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Cr.M.P.No.320 of 2016 in S.C.No.163 of 2014 dated 14.03.2016 and set aside the same. 2. The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.163 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 342, 307, 153A, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC. There are totally five accused and apart from these two petitioners, there are three other accused in the case. 3. It is seen that one Mr.G.Chandrasekhar, Advocate had filed m...
Valliammal Vs. Sheik Peer Mohammed
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records in E.P.No.11 of 2013 in O.S.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram and struck of the same.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for the records in E.P.No.11 of 2013 in O.S.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram and struck of the same. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The petitioner filed present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off Execution Petition filed by the respondent. 3. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2008, based on the equitable mortgage created by petitioner for a decree and directing the petitioner to pay the amounts due under mortgage, within the time limit fixed by the Court, failing which prayed for sale of mortgaged property and if sale proceeds are not sufficient to...
Srinivasan Vs. State: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1060 of 2014, set aside the portion of the Order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court permitting the prosecution to adduce oral evidence with respect to the listed document No.2 of the surprise check proceedings dated 05.08.2009.) A4 has filed this Criminal Original Petition with regard to a part of the impugned Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1060 of 2014 in C.C.No.15 of 2011 by the learned Special Judge under P.C. Act. 2. A1 was Medical Director, E.S.I. Corporation. She is a public servant. Her public duty involved placing of orders for the purchase of drugs with drug distributors. A4, a private person has been included as abettor to the commission of offence by A1. 3. Final Report filed. Charges were framed. Trial started. P.W.1 deposed as to his sanctioning of the prosecution against A1. P.W.2 Natarajan, DSP, spoken about his having conducted surprise check with the I...
Pachchaikani Vs. Sermakkani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in E.A.No.10 of 2011 in E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.386 of 2006, dated 23.03.2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.) This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 23.03.2011, passed in E.A.No.10 of 2011 in E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.386 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. The petitioner filed E.A.No.10 of 2011 for stay of E.P.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar till the disposal of O.S.No.7 of 2011 filed by one Karuppasamy. The respondent filed O.S.No.386 of 2006 against the petitioner for redemption of mortgage. An exparte decree was passed on 16.07.2007 and the petitioner filed I.A.No.750 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.386 of 2006. The said application was d...
Perumal and Another Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruppathur, Vellore District, in SC.No.172/2012 dated 10.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are arrayed as A1 and A2 in SC.No.172/2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore at Thirupathur. A1 stood charged for the offences u/s.302, 323 and 506[ii] IPC and A2 stood charged for the offences u/s.302 and 323 IPC. By judgment dated 10.04.2013, the Trial Court convicted A1 for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months ; u/s.323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and u/s.506[ii] IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Trial Court also convicted A2 for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ...
S. Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthilvel
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and set aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 337 of 2013, dated 17.06.2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.) 1. Crl.A.(MD).No.99 of 2015 was directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.337 of 2013 dated 17.6.2014, in and by which, the respondent in the appeal was acquitted on finding that the respondent/accused was not guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The appellant in the present appeal was the complainant before the Lower Court. As against the acquittal, he filed the present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. The papers in the appeal were presented before this Court on 20.10.2014. The Registry raised an objection as to how the appeal was maintainable, as it was filed beyond 60 days as laid down under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C. 3. The counsel for the appellant pro...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
1. The defacto complainant/P.W.4 seeks leave of the Court in preferring the appeal as against the order of acquittal passed as against A1 to A3 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.245 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram. 2. A2 and A3 are parents of A1. P.W.4 was then a 25 years old woman. A1 is stated to have raped her. 3. Appreciating the evidence of P.W.4, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that it is a case of consensual sex. The trial Court also essayed its Judgment holding that P.W.4 has voluntarily surrendered to the accused for sexual intercourse, thus, it will not amount to rape. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court suffers from legal perversity. The evidence of P.W.4 has not been considered in its proper perspective. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would contend that no date, time and place as to commission ...