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.
Mohamed Ibrahim Vs. State, rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 11.01.2013, made in S.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Erode. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 11.01.2013, the trial Court convicted him for both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Jamima Begam. The accused is her husband. The marriage bet...
P. Venkatachalam Vs. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.2201/2016 D.A., dated 03.06.2016 insofar as suspension of the petitioner, quash the same and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.) 1. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition, however, with liberty to permit him to make a representation to the authority concerned to reconsider the suspension order. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above submission and endorsement made, permission is granted to withdraw this Writ Petition and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the authority concerned seeking to reconsider the suspensi...
M. Shankar Vs. The District Collector,Collectorate Campus, Ramanathapu ...
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 forbearing the respondents 3 and 4 from in any way executing the construction work for ''Sukathara Valagam'' in 1. Kattuparamakudi, 2.Emaneshwaram Northern side of Vaigai River, 3.Floor Bridge, 4.Service Road, and 5.Emaneshwaram under Clean India Scheme 2015-2016, without following the procedures of Tender Transparency Act.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M. Navaneetha Krishnan Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to allot the petitioner new place for setting up the petty shop by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2016.) 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 running a petty shop at west side of New Natham Road, north side of bus-stop and neem tree. The petty shop is about 5 x 6 feet. Originally, the petty shop was allotted to Mr.P.Shanmuga Sundaram by means of an order of the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation in Ref.No. k.t.2/38588/07, during December 2007. Till January 2011, the said Shanmuga Sundaram took care of the petty shop and later, it was transferred in the petitioner's name and the same was recognized by the respondent in February 2011. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the petty shop continuously ti...
Minor Jayalakshmi and Another Vs. Seenuvasan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for numbering the application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in unnumbered E.A.No. Of 2015 in E.P.No.250 of 2009 in O.S.No.31 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.) 1. The revision petitioners, who are 3rd parties to the proceedings, have filed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, returning the Section 47 application filed by them in E.P.No.250 of 2009 in O.S.No.31 of 2004. 2. It is settled position that a 3rd party to the proceedings cannot file an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of Section 47 are very clear that only parties to the suit or their representatives have got right to file an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Admittedly, the revision petitioners are 3rd parties and therefore, the Execution Court has right...
R. Thiyagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records pertaining to the provisional selection list published by the 3rd respondent to the post of Senior Lecturer in Botany in Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training (DTERT) and District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) Called for vide advertisement No.03 dated 31.12.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to consider petitioner's candidature for the said post. 1. The writ petitioner is a Lecturer under the third respondent at District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Madurai from 05.01.2007, having been appointed through direct recruitment. The School Education Department framed adhoc rules of Tamil Nadu Teacher Education Service Rules, which was approved by the Government and published in the Gazette vide G.O.(Ms)No.133, dated 14.06.2007. The said rules prescribed ...
Mani @ Manirathinam and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.136 of 2010 dated 22.08.2012.) Common Judgement S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.303 of 2013 is the 1st Accused, the appellants in Crl.A.No.282 of 2013 are the Accused Nos.2 and 3, the appellant in Crl.A.No.195 of 2013 is the 4th Accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.508 of 2014 is the 5th Accused in S.C.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. A1 to A3 stood charged for offences under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and A4 and A5 stood charged for offences under Section 147, 342, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial court, by judgement 22.08.2012, convicted A1 to A5 under the charges framed against each of them and accordingly sentenced them as detailed below:- ad>Rank of the AccusedPenal provisions under which Charges were framedPenal provisions unde...
Suresh @ Karuppanan Vs. Duraipandi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order, dated 17.08.2015, passed in C.C.No.79 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, and allow this revision petition.) 1. Multiplication and duplication of cases is a nuisance in the judicial process. 2. A fish pond has become a grave concern. The revision petitioner instituted a private complaint in C.C.No.79 of 2013, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, as against the respondents. The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., directed issuing of summons to the respondents, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Since process fee was not paid, the complaint was dismissed under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C., on 17.08.2015. The complainant wants to revise the said order of dismissal in this revision. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very same complainant for the very same matter lodged a complaint with Mel...
Anandh and Others Vs. State represented by The Deputy Superintendent o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal riginal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the learned III Additional District Court (P.C.R.Court) Madurai under the SC/ST Act to consider the bail application on the surrender of the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 280 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the Respondents on merits on the same day.)1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned III Additional District Court (P.C.R.Court), Madurai under the SC/ST Act to consider the bail application on the surrender of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.280 of 2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 363 IPC r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Ordinance Act, pending investigation on the file of the respondents on merits on the same day.2. The complaint preferred by one Vignesh @ Somasundareswaran states that he was in love with one Thangam (name changed) and in respect of the same, there was a problem in the v...
Saraswathi Vs. Radhakrishnan and Others
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 relating to the order made in Na.Ka.No.A2/3651/09 dated 03.03.2010 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram allegedly passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Na.Ka.No.A2/3651/09 dated 03.03.2010. 2. Section 145 Cr.P.C., provides for resolution of disputes, when disputes relate to land or water, is likely to cause breach of peace. The object of Section 145 of the Code is to provide for speedy and efficacious remedy for the prevention of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace. The sine quo non for exercise of jurisdiction by the Executive Magistrate is his satisfaction that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »