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.
S. Shanmugam Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to give adequate police protection to the third respondent for enabling the third respondent to remove the illegal constructions put up by the respondents 5 and 6 in the open spaces around the shopping complex belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in front of the HIG residential block number 5, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. A letter was circulated to the Registry on 13.06.2016 seeking withdrawal of the above writ petition as the learned Special Government Pleader received instructions to that effect. It transpired now that after these instructions, so received, the petitioner died also. In these circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Krishnamoorthy Vs. The State Rep., by The Inspector of Police, Nagapat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 16.10.2014 in S.C.No.63 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Nagapattinam.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.63 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Nagapattinam. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 16.10.2014, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court ordered to run the above sentences concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, ...
C. Sornathammal Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(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/The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam to take speedy action to implement the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti passed in her proceedings No.ROC.8480/2010/A3, dated 27.09.2012 by including the Petitioner's name also as Joint Pattadhar in Patta No.2256, in respect of the land in S.No.361/11 of Karadikal Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, within the time limit specified by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. To avoid the avoidable delay, notice to the Third Respondent is dispensed with. 3. According to the Petitioner, she owns a piece of land measuring 1.30 acres in S.No.361/11 of Karadikal Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District and she purchased this piece of land by means of registered sale deed, dated 29..7.1973 on the file of Chekkanurani Sub-Registrar Office, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. The same piece of ...
Annathi @ Palani Vs. State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Cheyur Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.184 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Tiruppur. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 22.04.2015, the trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Pudukkan @ Palani. P.W.1 is his wife. The accused also hails from the same village. On 14.04.2014, the accused had tied his cattle on the land belonging to the deceased. He had also thrown the garbage on the land of the deceased. The deceased questioned the accused at about 12.00 midnight. This resulted in a quarrel. The deceased used abusive language. Provoked by the same, th...
S. Muniyandi @ Daniel Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to conduct an enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.4.2016 and register a case.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to conduct an enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.4.2016 and register a case. 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 sum and substance of the complaint is that when the petitioner accompanied his close relative by name Mari to the Town Police Station, Sankarankovil in respect of compliance of the conditions imposed against the said Mari by the Court with regard to production of his vehicle, the Inspector of Police and the Writer in the Police Station abused the petitioner in filthy language and also attempted to foist a false case against the petition...
Rajalakshmi Vs. E. Balakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 Cr.P.C., r/w. O.41 R1and2 CPC., praying to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 06.08.2012 made in O.S.No.26 of 2010, on the file of District and Sessions Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.) 1. The appellant / second defendant has come forward with this Appeal Suit, challenging the decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.26 of 2010, on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, on 06.08.2012. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, filed a Suit for partition and separate possession for their 2/5 share in the suit property stating that the property originally belonged to one Easwara Pillai. He executed a Gift Deed in favour of his second wife / Jegadhamma and giving life estate to her and vested remainder to children born to both first wife and second wife, Sathia Bama and Jegadhamma respectively. Jegadhamma died. The first wife having one daughter and three sons viz., Sethulekshmi/D1 and Ramachan...
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
(Prayers in W.P.No.40775 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the petitioner on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order in C.No.ACIT/COR CIR 3(1)/AAACT2964P/2015-16 dated 15.12.2015 and consequently direct the first respondent to grant stay of collection of tax and interest for the assessment year 2012-13 till the disposal of appeal by the 4th respondent. W.P.No.18347 of 2014: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the petitioner on the file of the 5th respondent and quash the impugned order in PAN/GIR:AAACT2964P/2014-15 dated 30.06.2014 and consequently direct the fifth respondent to grant stay of collection of tax and interest for the assessment year 2011-12 till the disposal of appeal by the 3rd respondent. W.P.No.33736 of 2013: Petition fi...
S. Appavu and Another Vs. The Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Ch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
(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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 3.2.2016 within the time limit stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The Petitioner in the main Writ Petition seeks for a limited relief namely praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent/The Land Settlement Tahsildar, Palani, Dindigul District to consider his representation, dated 3.2.2016 within the time limit to be determined by this Court. 4. Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 3.2.2016 is pending on the file of the Second Respondent/The Land Settlement Tahsildar,Palani, Dindigul District at this stage, this Court without dwelling deep into the merits and contentions of the representation of the Petitioner, da...
T. Sandhanamar Vs. The Chairperson/Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders to grant property situated at Plot No.8, Block B3 at S.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin Revenue District under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958, by way of issuing patta to the Petitioner on the basis of the representation dated 13.1.2016 sent by the Petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, ten acres in S.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin Revenue District belongs to Bhoodan Yagna Board which had developed and divide the said property into 12 parts. For more than 12 years, he is enjoying the property situated at Plot No.8, Block B3 at S.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin Revenue Di...
Natarajan Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents not to recover the petitioners monthly pension for the agriculture loan due on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 21.03.2016.) 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner; the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first Respondent and the Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he worked in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and retired from service in the year 2007 as Commercial Inspector. He is receiving a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards his monthly pension. His pension amount alone is the only source of income to his entire family. The Education expenses of his children are spent by utilising his monthly pension. 4. The petitioner is having Savings Bank Account in the third Respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »