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.
Sureshkumar and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 12.08.2014 made in S.C.No.154 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, by allowing these appeals.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Cr.A.No.476 of 2014 is the first accused; the appellant in Cr.A.No.484 of 2014 is the second accused and the appellants in Crl.A.No.456 of 2014 are the accused 3 to 5 in S.C.No.154 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. They stood charged for the offences as detailed hereunder:- ad>Sl.NoAccusedSection of law1A.1120-B, 148, 341,307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120-B, 302, 302 r/w 120-B2A.2148,341,307,302 r/w.1493A.3120-B, 147, 341,307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w.149, 302 r/w 120-B4A.4120-B,147, 341,307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w.149, 302 r/w 120-B5A.5120-B,147, 341,307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w.149, 302 r/w 120-B6A.6120-B, 307 r/w 120-B, 302 ...
Ramachandran and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.214 of 2011 dated 26.02.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division. There were two other accused by name (1) Ganesan and (2) Murugan, who were arrayed as A3 and A4 respectively. All the four accused stood charged for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC. By judgment dated 26.02.2015, the trial court convicted A1 and A2 for offence under Section 304(i) of IPC instead of Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and convicted A3 and A4 for offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months...
Linta K. Wilson Vs. Nasamony Memorial Christian College, Kanyakumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from passing any resolution for appointing or appointing anybody, other than the petitioner, in the second vacancy of Assistant Professor, otherwise called Lecturer, in Mathematics in the said section of the 1strespondent college.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Criminal Revision Petition before the competent forum. No costs....
V. Sathyabama Vs. The State, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pursuant to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.854 Home (Pol. XIX) Department dated 14.12.2011 passed by the 1st Respondent in so far as the petitioner's property to an extent of 10 cents purchased and registered in Document No. 3049/2011 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvattar which comes under S1.No.7 in Schedule of properties and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property in R.S.No.596/6A, Thiruvattar Village, Kalkulam Taluk, measuring an extent of 10 cents, from one Sundarabai, W/o.Nelson residing at Mekkodu Village, Kalkuzhi Post, Madathuvilai for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,14,000/- by means of registered sale deed dated 10.10.2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvattar (vide document No.3049 of 2011). After purchasing the said land, her name was entered in the revenue records (i...
S. Kalidas Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 05.08.2014 made in S.C.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The second accused in this case was one Mr.Pavithran. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 324 and 323 IPC as against the first accused and under Section 323 IPC as against the second accused. By judgment dated 05.08.2014, the Trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges and accordingly, punished them. The Trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i...
N. Ganesan and Another The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 8612/2016: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to harvest the fish, which are reared in the Arasaneri Tank, Puthur Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 20.01.2016. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 8613/2016: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to harvest the fish, which are reared in the Chettiyarpatti Village, Thondaiman Tank, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2016.) Common Order 1. These petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection to harvest the fish, which are reared in Aransanery Tank, Puttu...
M. Kathirevl Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Government Cable T. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to direct the fifth respondent to telecast the local channels of the petitioner through the MSO conducted by her and also to pass further orders as this Court may deem it fit.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
S. Arumugam Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the letter O.Mu.No.282/2016/14 dated 04.03.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate by taking the petitioner's application dated 11.01.2016 into file.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he is doing agricultural work and his father Thiru.S.Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai died intestate on 20.07.1955 leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and his sister Gandhi. His sister Gandhi died in the year 1974 itself. His mother Kamachiammal expired on 02.12.2006 leaving behind the petitioner as a sole legal heir. 4. The principal stand taken on behalf of the petitioner is that he is the sole legal heir of his deceased father Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai. Because of lack of education, he has n...
T.M. Suresh Vs. The Secretary, Dept. of Land Administration, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 7 to initiate action, to enquire into the matter, against the Eighth respondent and to furnish a detailed report to the Court.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The petitioner claims that the eighth respondent has encroached on a Government land and is making layout for sale of plots. 2. On the other hand, the stand of the Government and the eighth respondent is that they are in occupation of patta land, though it is accepted that no permission for lay out has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. 3. The Local Planning Authority represented by its Member Secretary is impleaded as the ninth respondent in this petition. Memo of parties be amended accordingly. 4. The third respondent to carry out inspection of the site and verify that the eighth respondent is only in occupation of his own patta land. This exercise be undertaken within one (1) month o...
M/s.HIL Limited (Formerly Hyderabad Industries Ltd.,) rep.by its Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 23.2.2016 passed in W.P.No.6431 of 2016 on the file of this Court.) D. Krishnakumar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.2.2016 passed in W.P.No.6431 of 2016, which was filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in TIN : 33531080477/2011-2012 and seeking quash of the order dated 18.1.2016 as contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and further, to forbear the first respondent from passing a revised Assessment Order for the Assessment year 2011-2012 under the TNVAT Act based on the directions given by the second and third respondents. 2. The appellant , M/s. HIL Ltd., are dealers of fly ash bricks and asbestos sheets, etc., doing business at Red Hills in Chennai, and they have reported a total and taxable turnover of of Rs.57,07,41,717 and Rs.56,95,31,912 respectively claiming an exemption of Rs.12,09,805/- in their monthly return filed in Form...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »