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.
Kalaiselvi Vs. Sivasubramanian
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to order passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.7 of 2015 dated 01.12.2015 against S.T.C. No.2880 of 2007 dated 18.12.2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli and set aside the same.) 1. Now the short and simple question is whether like a suit or appeal suit, a criminal appeal could be dismissed for default. 2. In this respect a civil case is different from a criminal case. In Civil Law, exparte disposal, dismissal for default is well known. But it is unknown in criminal law. Under the Criminal procedure, there is no exparte disposal, exparte conviction, exparte sentence. An accused cannot be punished without a hearing. 3. As per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, a person accused of a crime is entitled to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. It is a fundamental right. It is a consti...
G. Priya Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to enquire about the averments of demand of dowry and harassment in FIR No.14/2015 dated 11.06.2015 by some other agency and to file proper final report considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2016 within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. It is a petition seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps to cause an enquiry into the averments regarding demand of dowry and harassment as stated in FIR No.14/2015 dated 11.06.2015 by some other agency and to file proper final report by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons in respect of Crime No.14/2015 under Sections 498(A), 295(b), 324...
R. Periasamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant patta in the Petitioner's name which is relating to S.No.164/2, ad-measuring 3 acre and 10 cents situated at Koovanoothu Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has purchased the punja land in S.No.164/2 situated at Koovanoothu Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District by means of sale deed, dated 4.6.2009. He is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of his purchase and paying the kist for the said lands to the Government. The specific case of the Petitioner is that he had approached the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District time and again for issuance of...
S. Sumathi Vs. The Tahsildar, Pudukkottai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2016 and to take necessary action within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court for other reliefs.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, her father Thayumanavar died on 03.09.2001 and she is one of the daughters of her deceased father and also, there are two brothers and two sisters. After the death of her father, her brothers had not given any share of the property to her. The entire property of her father was self-inherited and survey numbers to the said property are 178 and 179 and its patta number is 1272, situated at Kodikulam Village, Manalmelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai and survey number 179, having patta number 1262, measures an extent of 18.5 cents and survey No.178 measures an extent of 5.5 ce...
M. Babu Vs. The Chennapuri Annadana Samajam (Regd) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.10.2014 made in A.S.No.165 of 2013 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6384 of 2009 dated 30.12.2012.) 1. The first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession is the appellant. Both the courts concurrently found against the appellant and granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff Trust. The second and third defendants remained exparte before both the courts. The present appeal is listed before me at the 'Adjourned Admission' stage. 2. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:- The plaintiff is one of the philanthropic institution at Chennai, which is now more than 100 years old. Its objects are to feed the poor without distinction of caste or creed; to establish minor industries for such poor; to establish educational instit...
Rajalakshmi Vs. Josephraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kanyakumar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, in Cr.M.P.No.5990 of 2015, dated 28.04.2016, by allowing this revision. 1. Since this matter lies in a narrow compass, we shall dispose of this revision today at the admission stage itself. 2. Rajalakshmi, de facto complainant, in Crime No.645 of 2015, on the file of Suchindrum Police Station, Kanyakumari District, aggrieved by the dismissal of her petition, in C.M.P.No.5990 of 2015, which is in the nature of a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, has directed this revision. 3. In her complaint, the revision petitioner alleged that on 9.9.2015, at about 08.30 a.m., near Kulasekarampudur, while she was walking on the Adavillai road, suddenly the Car TN72 B0177 came driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, she was thrown away, she got injured and ...
B. Anitha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to execute the warrant in M.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to execute the warrant in M.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein filed a complaint under Sections 18, 10, 20, 22 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Interim maintenance was also sought for by the petitioner herein in M.C.No.8 of 2008, which came to be dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram. Based on which, a revision has been filed before the Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and interim maintenance was ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from ...
D. Mohanna Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to promote the petitioner to the post of BT Assistant (English) in the vacancies at Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Kombai, Vadamadurai Union, Dindigul District or any other schools in Vadamadurai Union, Dindigul District as per the panel for promotion as on 1.1.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent herein in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.239 dated 22.9.2007 without any delay.) 1. The petitioner herein, by name, Ms.D.Mohana, who is presently working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Arasan Chettipatti, Vadamadurai Union, Dindigul District, seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to promote her to the post of BT Assistant (English) in the vacancies at the Panchayat Union Middle School, A.Kombai, Vadamadurai Union, Dindigul District or any other School in Vadamadurai Union, Dindi...
M. Nageswari Vs. The Principal Secretary/ The Commissioner of Revenue ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation given by the petitioner seeking to disburse the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Relief Fund for the accidental death of the petitioner's husband Murugan, based on the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent within the period that may be stipulated 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 petitioner is a widow and she was living with her husband Murugan (since deceased) in a joint family in their village. On 22.12.2012, at about 7.30 p.m, when her husband was riding a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 58 D 5034 in Solavanthan-Pannapatti Road, a vehicle came behind his motor cycle and hit him. Due to the said accident, on 30.12.2012, her husband succumbed to injuries in the hospital. 4. It comes to be known that on 22.12.201...
Uma Maheshwari and Another Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
Common Order: P. Devadass, J. 1. As these two criminal revisions are concerned in the same crime number and they are spouses this common order is passed. 2. In Crl. M.P.No. 3561 of 2014, A2/Umamaheswari and A1/Hariharan were granted bail before jail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Certain conditions were imposed it includes appearance of the accused persons daily at 10 a.m., before the respondent police. They have complied. Subsequently, in Crl.M.P. No. 6647 of 2014 on 12.09.2014 the bail conditions completely relaxed with respect of A2/Umaheswari. Latter, the respondent Police filed Cr.M.P.No.4749 of 2014 to cancel the bail on the ground that they have not obeyed the bail condition, viz, they have not attended the police station, as per the bail order. 3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge noted down in his cancellation bail order in para 3, which reads as follows:- TAMIL Thus the learned Judge has cancelled the bail. 4. The Court is bound to provide them legal assistance. Some lawyers...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »