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.
A. Chinnasamy Vs. The Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner of Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings, dated 28.04.2016, made in ROC No.48144/2010/(A2) and ROC No.48144/2010-1/A2, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all service and all monetary benefits till date and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings, dated 28.04.2016, made in ROC No.48144/2010/(A2) and ROC No.48144/2010-1/A2, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all service and all monetary benefits till date and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Award of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) passed in M.C.O.P.No.1459 of 2007, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai.) 1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.1459 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.2006, when the deceased Santhulal was proceeding in his bicycle on Kamarajar Road at Madurai, a lorry bearing Registration No.TDB-9897 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he died after three days. The legal representatives of the deceased laid a claim for Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The appellant filed a coun...
Beer @ Seit @ Beer Mohamed Vs. The State by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed in S.C.No.31/2008 dated 11.03.2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimundram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.) S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.31/2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, has come up with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(i) and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C., (since 366 I.P.C., provides major punishment, the trial Court has not punished the accused under Section 363 I.P.C., separately); to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one m...
V. Pandiammal Vs. The Managing Director, TASMAC and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2016.) 1. Heard the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for R-1 and R-3 and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R-2. 2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent's TASMAC Wine shop along with bar No.5234 is located at the premises belonging to her in door No.19/1, Pandiyarajapuram, By-Pass Road, Madurai, without obtaining permission or by obtaining no objection from her as the owner of the premises. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that the aforesaid premises was assessed to property tax by the Madurai Corporation in her name and she is regularly paying the property tax and also the electricity consumption charges for electricity service connection Nos.Z659, Z660 and Z661. It appears that the petitioner had approached the respondents o...
Suresh @ Rasappan @ Selvan Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police All W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 28.11.2013 made in S.C.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 366 and 376 (1) IPC. By judgment dated 28.11.2013, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 366 IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, (no default sentence imposed). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.2 - was doing third year B.Com course at Hindustan Col...
The Divisional Engineer, Tiruvannamalai and Another Vs. T. Dhanachezhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. At the stage of admission, this matter is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.3.2012 made in W.P.No.37889 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and confirmed the award passed by the second respondent-Labour Court in I.D.No.152 of 2000 dated 12.12.2006 in favour of the first respondent. 3. It appears that the first respondent/workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.152 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Vellore for the relief of reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other benefits, contending that he was engaged on Nominal Muster Roll basis in the Highways Department from 1990 as a Technical Assistant at the rate of Rs.50/- per day and had worked in t...
Duraisamy and Others Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Sal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Common Prayer in all Criminal Appeals:- These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 (2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.130 of 2012 dated 22.04.2013.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.516 of 2013 are the accused 2, 3 and 4; the appellants in Crl.A.No.672 of 2013 are the accused 5,6 and 11 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.667 of 2013 are the accused 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in S.C.No.179 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:- ad>Sl.NoAccusedSection of law1A.1120(B) , 147, 364, 302 r/w 149, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,2A.2120(B) , 147, 364, 302, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,3A.3120(B) , 148, 364, 302 r/w 149, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,4A.4 to A.7120(B) , 147, 364 r/w 120(B), 302 r/w 149, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,5A.8120(B) , 148, 364 r/w 120(B), 302, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C.,6A.9 to A.11120(B)...
S. Gopalakrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the drainage facility along side the house of the petitioner in North 3rd Street comprised in R.S.No.110-1 of Poolangudi Village, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District.) 1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. However, there is representation on the side of the respondents. 2. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. It comes to be known that there is a public street by name North 3rd Street, running in front of the house of the petitioner in R.S.No.110-1 of Poolangudi Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District. The said public street is being maintained by the fourth respondent Panchayat. In this connection, it is the plea of the petitioner that during the year 2008, when concrete road was laid in the said street, drainage facilities were provided in in both sides. All of a sudden, o...
Sumathi Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to take the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to private hospital for further treatment to his ailment at the cost of the petitioner by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 21.05.2016.) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human persons. (United Nations - Covenant on Civil and Political rights - UNICCPR) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to take treatment in a private hospital at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Dur...
V. Vimal Vs. The District Collector, Cuddalore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his impugned proceedings bearing No.A2/29842/2013, dated 27.12.2013 and No.Na.Ka.A2/29842/2013, dated 19.02.2015 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Junior Assistant in the light of the judgment reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119 and Government Letter No.13519/N/2015-1, dated 23.07.2015 and to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his impugned proceedings bearing No.A2/29842/2013, dated 27.12.2013 and Na.Ka.A2/29842/2013, dated 19.02.2015, and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »