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.
Nagaraj and Others Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Vellore Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruppathur, Vellore District in S.C.No.298 of 2001 dated 31.03.2008.) Common Judgment: As these Criminal Appeals are connected on facts and law and are directed against common judgment, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A2 to A9 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.298 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruppathur, Vellore District are the appellants. 3. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced as under:- ad>S.No.AccusedConvictionSentence1.A-5 / 1st Appellant in C.A.300 of 2008(i) Section 457 IPC(ii) Section 395 IPC(i) 3 years RI(ii) 7 years RI, fine Rs.2,000/-, i/d 6 months RI2.A-7 / 2nd Appellant in C.A.300 of 2008(i) -do-(ii) -do-(i) -do-(ii) -do-3.A-9 / 3rd Appellant in C.A.300 of 2008(i) -do-(ii) -do-(i) -do-(ii) -...
Dharmalingam Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by judgment made in S.C.No.6 of 2011 on 8.8.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. He was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By Judgment dated 8.8.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court by filing this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The appellant/accused and PW-4 Mahalingam are brotheRs. PW-2 Chennammal is their mother. The wife of the accused is one Kanaka. PW-3 Master Singaravelu is the son of PW-4 Mahal...
A. Valar Mukil Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to alter the sections in the FIR in Crime No.48 of 2016 in consonance with the petitioner's complaint dated 29.01.2016 within the period stipulated by this Honble Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent to alter the sections in the FIR in Crime No.48 of 2016 in consonance with the petitioner's complaint dated 29.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by this petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime no.48 of 2016 on 30.01.2016 for offences under Sections 292(A) and 509 IPC. According to the petitioner, the FIR requires to be amended. 4. Unlike code of Civil Procedure, where pleadings can be amended, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR cannot be amended. However, during the course of investigation, if the commi...
RM. Narayanan and Another Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order vide Pa.Mu.P4/10550/2014 dated 10.07.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.) The only point which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was fixed on 01.07.2014 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 22.07.2014, but the hearing was advanced on 08.07.2014 without notice to the petitioner, when the petitioners are admittedly living in Madras. Therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the date of hearing fixed by the official respondents and impugned order came to be passed. Thus, it is violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioners have not been heard of, before passing the impugned order by the first respondent. 2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that ...
The Secretary/Special Officer Attur Taluk, Co-operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. Admit. 2. Mr. M. Rajendran, learned counsel accepts notice for the first respondent. Mrs. T.P. Savitha learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 3. At request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. The Late husband of the first respondent/Rajendran obtained a loan through the appellant society, but failed to maintain financial discipline, paying only three instalments till he passed away on 11.09.2008. This has resulted in coercive steps, being threatened for recovery of the housing loan and the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 26.08.2015. 5. It has to be noticed at the inception that the averments made in the petition are not correct. No doubt, this is a hard case where late Rajendran - husband of the late first respondent/original petitioner is survived by his wife and five children. The first respondent has stated...
M/s. Foxconn India Developer (P) Ltd., Kancheepuram Vs. The Income tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, made in ITA No.492 /(Mds.)/2010 dated 30.4.2012.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the assessee, raises the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the upfront payment made by an assessee, under whatever name including premium, for the acquisition of leasehold rights over an immovable property for a long duration of time say 99 years, could be taken to constitute rental income at the hands of the lessor, obliging the lessee to deduct tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in confirming the levy of interest under Section 201(1-A) of the Act? 2. We have heard Mr.Arvind P.Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learne...
Uma @ Uma Maheshwari Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.32/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 8.9.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Ramu s/o.Selvam aged about 46 years the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Ramu s/o.Selvam aged about 46 years, the detenu herein at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Ramu, aged 46 years, son of Selvam, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.32/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 8.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Fore...
Angammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent no to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner's family properties in S.Nos.755/1, 78B/1A1, 605/1, 607, 608, 610, 611 and 612/2 at Keelpidagai Appan Koil Village, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent no to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner's family properties in S.Nos.755/1, 78B/1A1, 605/1, 607, 608, 610, 611 and 612/2 at Keelpidagai Appan Koil Village, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the complaint given by the third respondent against t...
S. Thirugnana Sambandam Vs. The ADGP Railways, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to file a final report in Crime No.30 of 2014 in Tuticorin Railway Police Station within the time limit stipulated by this Honoruable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to file a final report in Crime No.30 of 2014 in Tuticorin Railway Police Station within the time limit stipulated by this Honoruable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Today, the respondent police have filed a status report, wherein in Paragraph Nos.6 to 10, it is stated as follows: 6. I humbly submit that the then Inspector of Police enquired the Coolies, Porters, Auto Drivers who were in the Sathur, Kovilpatti Railway Stations and also obtained the old criminals list from the Railway Crime Record Bureau and enquired about them. 7. I humbly submit that in this juncture, the Inspector of Po...
N. Visalakshi Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing therespondents 1 to 3 to shift/transfer the detenu P.Nagendran, aged 48 years, to the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, from the Central Prison at Vellore, enabling the detenu with adequate medical assistance at the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital at Chennai.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the wife of the detenu, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct therespondents 1 to 3, to transfer the detenu, namely, P.Nagendran (Life Convict No.1236), aged about 48 years, to the Central Prison, Puzhal, at Chennai, from the Central Prison, at Vellore, to enable the detenu to get adequate medical assistance at the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai 2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, has stated that, her husband, namely, P.Nagendran, who has been detained in Central Prison, Vellore, is suffering from liver a...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »