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.
Union of India, Rep. by the Administrative Officer, Kancheepuram Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 4th respondent dated 09.10.2015 made in O.A.No.762 of 2013 and quash the same.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India challenging the order passed in O.A.No.762 of 2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned Standing counsel representing the Petitioner/Union of India and the learned counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The first respondent possess Diploma in General Nursing and Psychiatric Nursing. In response to an advertisement in Notification No.1/2009 dated 08.12.2009 calling for applications for filling up the post of Nurse/A, the first respondent applied for the same and was called for interview on 18.07.2012 and was provisionally selected vide offer letter dated 13.02.2013. However, subsequently, the offer of appointment came to be cancelled vide letter dated 10.05....
Dr. S. Jayabalan Vs. The Director General of Police, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of 1st respondent dated 20.7.2015 in proceedings No.T.IX-1/2015-PERS(MOs) and consequential order dated 21.9.2015 of 4th respondent in proceeding No.T.IX-1/2015-PA and quash the same insofar as petitioner is concerned and forbear the respondents from transferring the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition is instituted by the Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade), attached to the Central Reserve Police Force and Armed Force of the Union, questioning his transfer and attachment to the hospital of the CRPF at Bilaspur, Chattishgarh State. 2. Dr.R.Gouri, learned Counsel has very passionately pleaded that out of 22 years of service rendered by the writ petitioner, he had spent most time away from his home town, Coimbatore, and he was posted at Coimbatore only on 28.9.2012, and by the impugned order passed ...
Raja and Others Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in S.C.No.31 of 2000 dated 24.07.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 6 in S.C.No.31 of 2000, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The seventh accused, in this case, was one Mr.Arumugam. The trial Court framed as many as ten charges against the above stated seven accused as detailed below: Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under1A1 to A6120(B) of IPC2A7120(B) r/w 109 of IPC3A1 to A6449 of IPC4A7449 r/w 109 of IPC5A1, A2 and A4395 r/w 397 of IPC6A7395 r/w 109 of IPC7A1, A3, A5 and A6394 of IPC8A7394 r/w 109 of IPC9A1 to A6396 of IPC10A7396 r/w 109 of IPCBy judgment dated 24.07.2012, the trial Court acquitted the 7th accused of all charges, however, convicted the appellants / accused 1 to 6 for various offences as detailed bel...
Muniraj Vs. The State by, The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in SC.No.117/2010 dated 19.04.2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The sole accused in SC.No.117/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, has come up with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him. He stood charged for the offences u/s.363 IPC [2 counts] ; 302 IPC [2 counts] and 201 read with 302 IPC. By judgment dated 19.04.2012, the Trial Court acquitted him from the charges u/s.363 IPC [2 counts] and 201 r/w 302 IPC ; however convicted him for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:...
R. Jayaraj Vs. The Assistant General Manager and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction to be conducted vide E tender notice (BID No.1000014211), dated 09.02.2016.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to permit him to participate in the auction to be conducted pursuant to the issuance of the tender notice dated 09.02.2016. 2. In response to the tender notification issued by the first respondent on 09.02.2016, the petitioner submitted his application for participating in the tender proceedings. As per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.1,85,100/- (Rupees one lakh and eighty five thousand and one hundred only) has to be paid to the credit of the first respondent through on-line through e-tender portal or net banking or bank transfer in the form of RTG...
Suresh Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, ll Women Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed in Spl. S.C.No.4 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.) 1. The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Spl. S.C.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment. 2. In the said Court, after trial, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter POCSO Act) and sentenced him 3 years R.I. and fined him Rs.5,000/- and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, i/d 2 years RI. The learned Judge also directed him payment of further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- out of Victim Assistance Fund...
Nizar Ahamed @ Nizar Vs. State through, The Inspector of Police, Nagap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgment and conviction imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.163 of 2008 dated 18.10.2012 against the appellant/accused.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.163 of 2008 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. A.2 was one Mr.Vadivel. The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 302 I.P.C., against A.1; the second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., against A.2; the third charge was under Section 436 I.P.C., against A.1 and A.2 and the fourth charge was under Section 380 I.P.C., against A.1 and A.2. By judgment dated 18.10.2012, the trial Court acquitted A.2 from all the charges and convicted A.1 for offence under Sections 302, 380, 436 and 201 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 is before this Court with...
V. Anbazhagan Vs. A. Laser and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Election petition is filed to declare the election of the first respondent Mr.A.Laser in respect of No.199, Periyakulam (SC Assembly Constituency) held on 13.4.2011 for which results were declared on 13.5.2011 as null and void and declare the petitioner as duly elected for the said constituency in the said election.) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 80(A), 100(1) (a) and Section 97 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 mainly as against the first respondent Mr.A. Laser to declare his election in respect of No.199 Periakulam (Scheduled Caste Assembly Constituency) held on 13.4.2011 for which the results were declared on 13.5.2011 as null and void and declare the petitioner as duly elected for the said constituency in the said election. 2. The first respondent has resisted the Election Petition by filing his counter affidavit. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties concerned, necessary issues have been formulated by this Court and there...
Parasuraman Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 03.11.2011, made in S.C.No.105 of 2008.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 03.11.2011, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years. 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 Mrs.Sangalani. The accused is her husband. The marriage between them was celebrated 15 years before the occurrence. Out of the said wedlock, they have got 3 children. But in due course of their ...
M. Muthuraj Vs. The Deputy General of Police Tamil Nadu Police Departm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. Challenging the rejection of representation for compassionate appointment vide order dated 01.3.2011 passed by the office of the Director General of Police confirming the order of the Superintendent of Police, Turicorin District, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition and has also sought for direction to the respondents to provide him employment on compassionate grounds. 2. One P. Malaiappan was functioning as a Sub-Inspector of Police and while in service, he expired on 08.4.2008 due to an accident. He was survived by the petitioner and his sisters born through the second wife and two wives. It is the case of the petitioner that his father originally married one Saroja, who was none other than his mother's elder sister and since she was issueless, his father married his mother as his second wife and they all lived in one house. The further case of the petitioner is that at the time of his father's death, he was studying degree of law and...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »