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.
T.S.M. Thummuni(died) and Others Vs. Doulat Nisha and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
1. The plaintiffs/appellants who lost the legal battle in both the Courts, have come forward with the Second Appeal, challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S. No. 18 of 1997, dated 27.07.1999 by the Additional District Court Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, by confirming the Decree and Judgment made in O.S. No. 338 of 1986, dated 30.09.1996 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 3. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit in O.S. No. 338 of 1986 for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 not to remove, demolish or make a new construction and alteration in the suit properties by stating that the suit properties originally owned by their father and their predecessors on title and they have inherited the properties and made a construction. In the suit properties, Door No. 11 stands in the na...
Veeramuthu Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment, dated 19.03.2015, made in S.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.) S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, at Poonamallee. He was charged for the offence under Sections 294 (b), 353 and 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 19.03.2015, the trial court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 353 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life (No fine was imposed) for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before t...
P. Malarvili Vs. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, represen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the notice issued by the third Respondent vide. Ref.No.2548/SBMC/2012 dated 29.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the third Respondent not to interfere into the studies of petitioner's son M.Monish Rajer (final year student of MBBS) at the Third Respondent College.) 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, her son Monish Rajer, when he was in the midst of exam holidays after completing higher secondary examination, he was foisted with a false case by the Traffic Intelligence Wing, Tirunelveli City on 05.12.2011 in Crime No.367 of 2011 under Sections 297 and 337 of I.P.C., based on the allegation that while driving a car viz., Nissan Micro, his son had failed to give attention on a road trafficking and instead driven the car in a rash and negligent manner. As a resul...
P. Balasubramaninan Vs. The Principal Secretary cum, Chairman of State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle my retirement benefits including Gratuity, un-availed leave salary and payment for leave on private affairs with all other attendant benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.) 1. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and decided by this common order. 2. All the petitioners herein were the employees of the respondent Transport Corporation. Seeking disbursal of their retirement benefits, they have preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitione...
P.S.M.V.N.V. Ramakrishnan Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the the respondent to consider the Petitioner's application dated 12.5.2010 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 3. It appears that the Petitioner had made a representation to the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai seeking transfer of patta of the land in issue in his favour. In the said representation, he had clearly stated that his father Late. P.S.M.V.N.Vadivelmurugan was in enjoyment of the property in S.No.1723/2D, in Pata No.784, measuring an extent of 0.21.5 ares. Till date, the said representation is pending and the same is not yet disposed of. 4. In view of the fact that the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12.5.2010 is pending on the file of the Respond...
M. Muthuraj Vs. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Bagal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crime No.177 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No.177 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.02.2011, two Constables attached to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka, were on usual rounds and found the petitioner/accused moving around suspiciously with a gunny bag. On seeing the policy party, the petitioner/accused attempted to flee. He was caught by the police and when the gunny bag in his possession was checked, it was found to contain two batteries. 3.2. The Police Constables took the petitioner/accused to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka and registered a case on the same day in Attebele P.S...
Madurai Central Market Vegetable and Perishable Commodities Merchant C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Ka.No.117/Ko.4/2016 dated 14.06.2016 and quash the same. Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This writ petition is instituted calling in question the correctness of the proceedings dated 14th June 2016, passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Irrigation Section -II, Periyar Vaigai Basin Sub Division No.I, Madurai. By virtue of the proceedings, the petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment within seven days, failing which, action would be taken against the petitioner and the encroachment would be removed at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Prasannavinoth, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. It is urged before us that there was no...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
1. Order on maintainability. These appeals together with Special Leave Petitions have been preferred by the Public Prosecutor for the State as against order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur in C.C.Nos.82 and 83 of 2013 on 29.03.2016 under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 2. On the anvil of decision of a Full Bench of this Court in S.GANAPATHY V. N.SENTHILVEL [2016 (4) CTC 119], the Registry raised objection as to how these appeals against order of acquittal recorded by a Magistrate can be maintained in this Court without approaching the Sessions Court, Madurai. 3. The appellant in its written endorsement replied that as per Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. such Appeals against order of acquittal after obtaining Special Leave of this Court could be maintained in this Court. 4. In the circumstances, this matter was posted for hearing on the maintainability of the appeals in this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Full Bench decision in GANAPATHY (supra) with...
P. Subapriya Vs. R. Ramachandran and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Tirunelveli to expedite the trial in M.C.No.14 of 2015 and complete the trial within a stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1 Tirunelveli to expedite the trial in M.C.No.14 of 2015 and complete the trial within a stipulated time. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 3. The petitioner/wife has filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act seeking the relief under Sections 18, 19, 19(3), 19(5), 19(8), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(d), 20(3), 22 of the Act. 4. From the perusal of the Diary Extract, it is evident that after counselling, P.W.1 has been examined on 14.12.2015. Thereafter, she was not present for several hearings and therefore, she was not cross examined. Therefore, her evidence has been closed on 27.04.2016. Thereafter, an ...
N. Raja and Another Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application in X.K/0927/2016 (m1) dated .03.2016 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. It appears that the petitioners had addressed a representation dated 04.03.2016 to the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy praying for issuance of separate Patta. It appears that the said representation was forwarded to the third respondent/Tahsildar, Thottiyam, Trichy District and the matter is pending at that stage without any progress. 4. In view of the fact that the relief sought for by the petitioners is for passing of an order by this Court in directing the third respondent/Tahsildar, Thottiyam, Trichy District, to dispose of his application in X.K/0927/2016 (m1) dated .03.2016, at this stage, thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »