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.
SP. D. Karuppaiah Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent No.2 to register FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 23.03.2016 preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law within the stipulated time.) 1. Karuppaiah, the petitioner came forward with this petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for a direction to the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption department, Sivagangai District, to register a criminal case as against one Nirmala and Karaikudi Municipality officials. 2. The said Karuppaiah's younger brother is one Maruthupathi. It is stated that the petitioner owns a piece of land comprised Survey No.563 situate in Karaikudi, Sivagangai Dsitrict. The said Maruthupathi passed away. Karuppaiah is stated to have as succeeded him to the said property. According to him, later, one Nirmala ownership to the said property, based on certain fake house tax receipts. 3. Karuppaiah alleges that the K...
R. Akilarajan and Others Vs. Aruna
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the proceedings in connection with D.V.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in D.V.No.17 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. After going through the materials and after hearing the arguments for quashing the proceedings, this Court expressed the opinion that the petitioners may have a good case for defense, but not for quashing the proceedings. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner after explaining the series of litigations pending between the parties, highlighting the plight of the petitioner's seek for expeditious disposal of D.V.No.17 of 2016. 3. In view of the restricted relief sought for by the petitioner at this st...
Arulmigu Urumankulam Pannirupidi Ayyan Medical Educational and Charita ...
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 Mandamus directing the respondent to pass fresh award as per the order of the Honourable Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 10.02.2014 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. It comes to be known that the petitioner's managing trustee had addressed a communication/petition dated 10.12.2015, to the respondent/District Collector, Tirunelveli District, inter alia, stating that the award passed by the District Collector and Arbitrator in R.C.No.J1/43334/08 dated 03.07.2008 was set aside by the Learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in Arbitration O.P.No.42 of 2009, dated 10.02.2014 and a fresh disposal was ordered considering the two documents filed by the petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid communication dated 10.12.2015, the managing trustee of the petitioner...
Thiru. R. Kottursamy Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District ...
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 Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the lease period of quarry lease by 1 month pursuant to proceedings of 4th respondent dated 02.06.2015 in respect of Miscellaneous Property Nos.10, 14 and 16 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2016 within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that his request for renewal of lease for the period 2016-17 may be considered by the fourth respondent. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the respondents and requested them to extend his lease period for one year and further he gave an undertaking to pay the lease amount to be fixed by the respondents for the extension period in question. Admittedly, the petitioner's representation d...
T. Murugan Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment in S.C.No.358/2011 dated 18.01.2013, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.358/2011, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.01.2013, convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life (no fine amount was imposed by the trial Court). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Balan @ Balakrishnan. P.W.13 was running a Bakery in Coimbatore. In which, P.W.1 was working as a Cashier; the deceased and the accused were working as Tea Masters; P.W.2 was working as ...
S. Veeranan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 23.03.2016 and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 23.03.2016 and investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. The allegation in the complaint is that the proposed accused persons, by promising to get a job to the petitioner in the Transport Department, received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from him one year before; that they have neither secured a job nor returned the amount to him; that when the return of amount was insisted by the petitioner, the proposed accused persons threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and...
C. Selvam Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Others
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 respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2014 within a stipulated time as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2014. The petitioner in his representations to the District Collector, the first respondent and other respondents seeks enforcement of some privileges and honours in the temple which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner under Section 63(e) of H.R. and C.E. Act, 1959. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he has also filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, H.R and C.E Department, Madurai, under Section 63(e) of the HR and CE, Act 1959. 3. It is seen that the prayer in t...
M/s. Kitchas Trading Company, Rep. by its Managing Partner Paramasivan ...
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 Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2016 to the effect that to extend the benefit which was granted to the M/s. West Coats Paper Mills Ltd., Dandeli Karnataka in C.No.6309/05L, dated 17.08.2010 to the petitioner company namely the M/s. Kitchas Trading Company.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, it is a registered firm undertaking contract for cutting and removing of woods and other materials from the forest. In fact, the petitioner is an approved class-I contractor. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the third respondent/District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal Division, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District granted permission for cutting and removing the trees as well as barks. The petitioner, on seeing the advertisement approached the second r...
Ayyanar and Another Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Cuddalo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.89 of 2012 dated 15.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.89 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddallore, Cuddalore District. A1 stood charged for offences under Section 376 r/w 511, 302 and 201 of IPC. A2 stood charged for offence under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 15.03.2013, the trial court convicted A1 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and convicted A2 for offence under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced A1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years for offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of...
Madappan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 17.09.2014, made in S.C.No.58 of 2012 on the file of Fast Track Court-cum-Mahila Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.58 of 2012 on the file of Fast Track Court-cum-Mahila Sessions Court, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 17.09.2014, the trial Court convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 364 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. No fine was imposed. However, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is be...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »