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.
Rajan @ David Raja Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Aanaimalai Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by judgment dated 01.08.2011 made in S.C.No.159 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC -1), Coimbatore, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.159 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC -I) Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302, and 506(ii) IPC (2 counts). By judgment dated 01.08.2011, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 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:- The accused is the resident of Udaikulam village, Coimbatore District. P.W.7 Krishnaveni alias Mary is the wife of the...
T. Mohan Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 in C.C.No.4 of 2006 by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the above said learned Judge to recall the P.W.15 of the said case for cross examination.) 1. As against the refusal of the C.B.I. Court, Madurai to recall P.W.15, A8 who has failed to that extent in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 in C.C.No.4 of 2006 has directed this revision. 2. There are 8 accused in this case. They were challaned before the CBI Court, Madurai by the ACB of CBI, Chennai. As one absconded, the balance 7 accused have took up their trial. Revision Petitioner is one of them. Evidence has been let in. The case is posted for defence evidence. Almost it is on its last journey. At this juncture revision petitioner woke up. Filed Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 to recall P.Ws.15, 42, 48 and 51. H...
A. Syed Abdul Rahim Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's Second Appeal dated 29.10.2015, as accordance with law and on merits and also as per Section 18(C) of the Right to Information Act, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.) 1. The Learned Counsel on record for the Petitioner submitted a letter, dated 13.06.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
M/s. Falcon Types Ltd., Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Chander Kot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No. 40100 of 2016, dated 25.01.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006, declining to entertain the appeal, as time barred. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant submitted a Bill of Entry on 26.08.2006, for import of natural rubber and the goods were assessed. Part of goods were cleared duty-free and part of goods were cleared on payment of appropriate customs duty on 13.09.2006. Appellant has contended that the order of assessment, dated 26.08.2006, was erroneous, on the grounds that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 4001 22 00 under CN 21/2002 Sl. No. 491, which attracts duty at the rate of 20% + Nil + 2% + 4%, and at the time of assessment, the goods were classified under CTH 400110.10, which attracts higher duty and at the time of assessment, the same was not noticed by them. The appellant has...
Suguna Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein dated 23.02.2016 made in C3/D.O.No.12/2016 against the detenu Thiru Appa @ Rajendran, Male aged 26 years, S/o.Shanmugam, who is now detained in Central Prison, Vellore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Thiru Appa @ Rajendran, S/o.Shanmugam, Male aged 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 23.02.2016, against her husband branding him as a Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tam...
G. Balakrishnan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus (a) directing the respondents to issue appropriate instructions to the authorities in the Higher and School Education Departments to take prompt steps to implement the G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 31.07.2000 of the School Education (C-2) Department by issuing appropriate directions to the Educational Institutions coming under their respective jurisdictions regarding the right of the parents/wards not to be compelled to declare their religion/caste while seeking admission into the educational institutions and permit such persons to mention as No Religion and No Caste against the respective columns; (b) directing the respondents to issue appropriate instructions to all the Educational institutions in the State directing not to mention the religion/caste of the student in the Transfer Certificate issued by the educational institution concerned, based on the petitioner's representat...
V.S. Venkatachalam Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4th respondent to promote the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent Police Department, based on the petitioner's representations, dated 15.12.2015 and 24.02.2016, and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.) 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 Mandamus, to direct the 4th respondent to promote the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent Police Department, based on the petitioner's representations, dated 15.12.2015 and 24.02.2016, and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. 3. The petitioner entered into service as Second Grade Police Constable, on 19.12.1982. Subsequently, he got p...
M/s. Rajaguru Traders, Rep by its Proprietor M. Muthu, Karur Vs. C. Vi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.249 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur and quash the same.) 1. The issue raised in this case is, whether a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act is maintainable, when the cheque was presented for payment beyond the period of six months, as prescribed under the proviso (a) to Section 138 of N.I. Act.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to to quash the case in C.C.No.249 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur, on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation. 3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- on 12.07.2006 as hand loan and issued two cheques dated 27.11.2006 and 04.12.2006 each for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.65,000/- respectively. The complainant presented the above cheques for co...
J. Iyyappa Ganesh Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue new patta in the petitioner's name to an extent of 14.56 ares (36 cents) comprising in Survey No.110/1 situated at Oojanpatti Village, Theni District, based on his representation dated 06.04.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, earlier, on 11.10.2012, he was issued with Patta in respect of property in question. The grievance of the petitioner is that the extent was mentioned as 14 ares in the Patta issued on 11.10.2012. But he claims that for his property of 36 cents, Patta ought to be issued is 14.56 ares. In this regard, he submitted a petition on 13.02.2014 to the second respondent and again on 26.09.2015, he submitted another representation to the second respondent. However, till date, no tangible steps have been taken in this regard. He...
The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector, Hosur Vs. Pukkappa and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hosur in LAOP Nos.364, 372 and 385 of 1996, dated 11.7.2001.) Common Judgment 1. Challenging the award passed in LAOP Nos.364, 372 and 385 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Court, Hosur, the Referring Officer has filed the above appeals. 2. An extent of land measuring 9.90.5 hectares situated in Hosur, Village of Dharmapuri District, presently at Krishnagiri District, was acquired for the purpose of establishing Electrical and Electronic Estate at Hosur. 3. Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 23.11.1988 and the Sub Collector, Hosur held enquiry and gathered sales statistics between 21.12.1987 and 20.12.1988. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer considered Survey No.857/2 to an extent of 25 cents of Hosur Village sold for a sum of Rs.25,000/- by a sale deed dated 14.12.1988 as data land. The Acquisition Officer found that the data land was similar to the lands ...