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. Vijaya Vs. State rep. by its the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 21.01.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 21.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam. 3. The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016 dated 21.01.2016 in Cr.No.519 of 2016 (filed by the Petitioner/Owner of the vehicle under Section 451(1) and 457 Cr.P.C.) had observed the following: On perusal of records and the documents. The Peralam Police Station has registered case in Cr.No.519 of 2016 u/s.4(1)(aa) r/w.4(1-a) TNP Act and 14(A) TNP Act and Transport. The case property involved in commission of offence has not produced be...
Ahamed Anwar and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.54 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.54 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.54 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.G.Lakshmi Narayanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respective parties. 4. The counsel appea...
A. Maria Leon Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kanyakumari District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN:33956166344/2014-2015, dated 29.03.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 03.02.2016.) 1. The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order in TIN:33956166344/2014-2015, dated 29.03.2016 passed by the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 03.02.2016. 2. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that a specific request has been made by the assessee seeking for personal hearing. 3. Once personal hearing is sought for before passing the assessment order which should be considered as per the judgment of this Court in SRC Projects Pvt Ltd -Vs- Commissioner of Commer...
Tvl. Ambika Saw Mills, Rep. by Madhavji Naarayan Patel, Tirunelveli Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to TAN:MRIS03158B dated 29.03.2016 for assessment year 2014-2015 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider Form 27C submitted by the petitioner.) 1. After some elaborate arguments, when this Court pointed out that since there is factual matrix involved in all these Writ Petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the matter has to be gone into detail in an appeal. 2. In that view of the matter, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority for preferring an appal and work out their remedy, in the manner known to law. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the time for preferring an appeal will be over by 01.05.2016. Therefore, the time alone is ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the judgment dated 27.11.2015 in C.A.No.112 of 2015 passed by the Learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in dismissing the Appeal and thereby, confirming the judgment dated 24.04.2015 in C.C.No.284 of 2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Magesterial Coimbatore, sentencing her to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1882 and also, directed her to pay a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- to the Complainant, within a period of two months in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., failing which, the Petitioner/Accused was directed to undergo default sentence of 3 months S.I. 3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition challenges the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2015 in C.A.No.112 of 2015 pass...
Karuppaiah Pillai and Others Vs. Palanisamy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1999 made in A.S.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1990 made in O.S.No.153 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.) 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1999 made in A.S.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1990 made in O.S.No.153 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi. 2. The facts arising out of this second appeal, are as under: The appellants are the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 and the respondents are the defendants in the suit filed in O.S.No.153 of 1983 on the file the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.153 of 1983 on the file of the Di...
Lingapandi and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.50 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.50 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.50 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2014147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.D.Thirumalai Kumar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identi...
Thangaraj Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's objection dated 08.04.2016 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's objection dated 08.04.2016. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that already civil suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner. In spite of the same, the fifth respondent has given an application to permit him to conduct the festival, which he is not entitled. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner should also be heard before taking any decision in the application filed by the fifth respondent. 4. Taking note of the submissions made, the fourth respondent is directed to give an opportunity of being heard to ...
S.A. Amannullah @ Aman Vs. The Health Secretary, Government of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue the Discharge Summary to the Petitioner and to take appropriate action against the erring Medical Officers and to admit the Petitioner in the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment and to award cost to the Petitioner.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue the Discharge Summary to the Petitioner and to take appropriate action against the erring Medical Officers and to admit the Petitioner in the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment and to award cost to the Petitioner. 2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are that the Petitioner was working as a cook and on 8.2.2016, when he was travelling with his Assistant, in his Splender Motorcycle, bearing Reg.No.TN 03 DB 6876, as a Pillion Rider, near Mullai Nagar Bus Stand, Ennarrure Br...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
M. Venugopal, J., 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment dated 22.01.2016 in C.A.No.141 of 2015 passed by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in dismissing the Appeal and thereby, confirming the judgment in S.T.C.No.100 of 2013 dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode. 3. The Petitioner/Appellant has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to suspend the execution of sentence of 6 months S.I. dated 06.10.2015 passed by the trial Court in S.T.C.No.100 of 2013, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2016 in C.A.No.141 of 2015. 4. It comes to be known that the trial Court in S.T.C.No.100 of 2013 by means of judgment dated 06.10.2015 had convicted and sentenced the Petitioner/Accused to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also, directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-,...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »