Chennai Court June 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.
Vediappan and Others Vs. The State, by The Inspector of Police, Dharma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set-aside the conviction imposed in the judgment, dated 19.11.2014, made in S.C.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Dharmapuri District, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. The trial court framed as many as five charges against the accused as detailed below:- ChargesAccusedSection of lawCharge No.1Accused 1 to 3120-B I.P.C.,Charge No.2Accused 2 and 3364 I.P.C.,Charge No.3Accused 1364 r/w 109 I.P.C.,Charge No.4Accused 2 to 3302 I.P.C.,Charge No.5Accused 1302 r/w 109 I.P.C.,2. The accused denied the same. By judgment, dated 19.11.2014, the trial Court convicted all the three accused and sentenced them as detailed below:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA-1 to A-3120-B IPC.,Each of the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten yea...
Mohan @ Kullan Vs. State, by the Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, in the judgment, dated 22.08.2014, made in S.C.No.128 of 2013, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.128 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamalle. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 22.08.2014, the trial Court convicted him, on both the charges, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant i...
Nisha Parveen Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondents to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 lodged with the 2nd respondent and investigate into the matter in accordance with law and file a final report within a period of prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 lodged with the 2nd respondent and investigate into the matter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, who would submit that already a case has been registered under Sections 498(A), 323, 109 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 in Crime No.15 of 2016. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
S.P. Velayutham Vs. Mosai Valsalam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.353 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.) Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Based on the private complaint preferred against the petitioner, learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC in C.C.No.353 of 2009. 2.1. According to the allegation made in the complaint, the first and second accused alone issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- and this pet...
S. Gopi, Proprietor, M/s. Bangalore Prasanna Perfumes Vs. Sri Jai Sai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and under Sections 55, 56 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents or anyone claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark GAYATHRI together with the device of Goddess GAYATHRI by using the offending trade mark JAI GAYATHRI together with the device of Goddess GAYATHRI or any other mark or marks which are identical and similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark GAYATHRI together with the device of Goddess GAYATHRI; b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents or anyone claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic work GAYATHRI together wi...
Er.P.V. Balachandra Rao, Corporation of Chennai Vs. The Commissioner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release 25% of DCRG withheld i.e., Rs.58,505.45 plus increase, together with a reasonable interest at 18% for the last 14 years; also 18% interest on the delay of two years in the release of 75% of DRCG commutation and regular pension.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release 25% of DCRG withheld i.e., Rs.58,505.45 plus increase, together with a reasonable interest at 18% for the last 14 years and also 18% interest on the delay of two years in the release of 75% of DRCG commutation and regular pension. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner, who retired on 30.11.1998 has filed this petition, claiming withdrawal of his withheld DCRG amount, that too, only 25%. According to him, at the time of hi...
S. Prashad Vs. The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk Office, Madurai Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation, dated 14.3.2016 within the time limit prescribed by this Court.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the Writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
T. Manjula Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from giving approval for conversion of agricultural lands into residential lay outs without following the mandatory procedures laid down in G.O.(Ms).No.255 Rural Development (C2) Department dated 18.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.71 Rural Development (C2) Department dated 16.06.2003 and further direct the 2nd respondent to investigate the vast conversion of agricultural lands into residential lay outs without following the procedures laid down and issue suitable instructions to the local bodies to stop the indiscriminate conversion of agricultural lands into residential lay outs without getting prior concurrence from them before giving approval.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ 1. The petitioner is a resident of Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District and that area is governed by the Sayanavaran Panchayat. The allegation of the petitioner is that from time to time, at ...
Selvaraj and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2768 of 2014 in C.C.No.1208 of 2013 on 20.02.2015. Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2767 of 2014 in C.C.No.1208 of 2013 on 20.02.2015.) 1. Case in Crime No.1202 of 2011 on the file of the respondent was registered for offences u/s.406, 420, 477-A r/w 120-B IPC. The complaint was preferred by second respondent, the acting President of the South India Cine and TV Drivers Association, informing that the first accused as President, the second accused as Secretary and the third accused (since deceased) as Treasurer of the Association, wrongfully had drawn a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the Association's savings fund of about Rs.1 crores on the pretext of advancing monies towards purchase of land at Nallore ...
P. Vellaichamy Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to grant patta in Petitioner's name for the property situated in Trichy District, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Thirunedungulam Village in Plot Nos.18,26 and 27 in S.No.105/1B, 105/1C, 105/1E and 105/1F for an total extent of 6000 sq.ft by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 3.6.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, he purchased the half of the land in Plot No.18 of the lay-out in question measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft, by means of a registered sale deed, dated 17.12.2003 from Veeralakshmi @ Jeyamary. From the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He had applied for patta in his name in respect of the land before the Respondents f...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »