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.
Palanisamy Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Kadampur Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila (Fast Track) Sessions Court, Erode. There were two other accused by name Venkatachalam and Shanthi. They stood charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 of IPC. By judgment dated 20.05.2014, the trial court convicted the 1st accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. However, acquitted all the three accused from the charge under Section 120-B of IPC and the accused 2 and 3 from the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/1st accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The 1st accused is a resident of Kuttaikattuthottam, Udayagoundanpalayam, Gobichettipalayam Taluk in Erode District. 23 years prior to the occurrence, the 1st accused had married one Nageswari and out of the said wedlock, a son and a daug...
Shanmugaraj Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Karivala ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the Additional Sessions Judge II (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District to consider the bail application of the petitioner in Crime No.146 of 2016 on the same date of surrender and dispose the same on its merits in accordance with law.)1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the Additional Sessions Judge II (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District to consider the bail application of the petitioner in Crime No.146 of 2016 on the same date of surrender and dispose the same on its merits in accordance with law.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 379(NH) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 in Crime No.146 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petition...
S. Augustin Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oratha Nadu and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to award adequate police protection to the petitioner and enabling the petitioner to go up with fencing the land in S.No.214/1B, 2B Murthyambalpuram, Panayamkottai, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District in the light of the proceedings in Na.Ka.86029/2010/A2 dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Collector, Thanjavur by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 1st respondent to award adequate police protection to the petitioner and enabling the petitioner to go up with fencing the land in S.No.214/1B, 2B Murthyambalpuram, Panayamkottai, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District in the light of the proceedings in Na.Ka.86029/2010/A2 dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Collector, Thanjavur by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2016. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despit...
K.G. Anuradha Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to cancel the Sale Deed dated 12.04.2012 in Document No.1491 of 2012 as obtained my fraud on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2013 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to cancel the Sale Deed dated 12.04.2012 in Document No.1491 of 2012 as obtained by fraud on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 04.06.2013. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her husband purchased the landed property in Survey No.97/4 at Maruthupandiyar Cross Street, Thirunagar, Madurai, by a sale deed, dated 26.03.1990. Though the petitioner admitted that the property was purchased in the name of her husband, she contended that the funds were provided by her out of her own earn...
Sai enterprises Vs. Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Common Prayer :- This Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned order No.35/2014-Cus., dated 29.12.2014, passed by the first respondent in S.A.Cus.18-19/2014-S.C., in sofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same and further direct the first respondent herein to re-hear and dispose of the above Settlement Application filed before them by the petitioner herein on merits after affording an opportunity of Personal Hearing by furnishing the documents requested by the petitioner.) 1. Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.12794 of 2015 is a proprietary concern managed by its Proprietor Mr.C.Manoharan, who is petitioner in W.P.No.12795 of 2015 i...
J. Sri Raja Gowtham Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Perungu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with Cr.M.P.No.2384 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to release the vehicle namely TATA INDICA mint white colour car bearing registration No.TN 67 AP 9956 to the custody of the petitioner.) 1. The revision petitioner who is a third party aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in Crl.M.P.No.2384 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai has directed this revision. 2. On the occurrence day, just outside the Madurai Airport a Tata Indica car TN 67 AP 9956 was intercepted by the police. It found containing 6 bottles of foreign liquors purchased in a liquor shop in Colombo. The inmates of the car have alighted from a Colombo flight. Police registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2016. In this connection, the car was se...
S. Senthil Kumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Office K. Pudur, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the first respondent to appoint a competent Police Officer, other than the 2nd respondent, to investigate the case in Crime No.67 of 2016 and to file a final report before the competenut Court within a stipulated time.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the first respondent to appoint a competent Police Officer, other than the 2nd respondent, to investigate the case in Crime No.67 of 2016 and to file a final report before the competent Court within a stipulated time. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent Police hand in glove with the accused threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and that he is not taking any efforts to investigate the matter and to file a final report. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the afo...
A. Farhana Vs. The General Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the amount in respect of the Life Insurance Policies taken by the Petitioner's husband bearing Nos.782525590 Rs. 1 lakh, 744108554 Rs.1.50 Lakhs, 744108555 Rs.1.50 Lakhs, 744109439 Rs.1.75 Lakhs, 744109440 Rs.1.75 Lakhs, 744109441 Rs.1.50 Lakhs and 783567819 Rs.5 Lakhs to the legal heirs of the deceased (Late) Magendran @ Mohammed Yasin, Muslim, as per the provisions of Hanafi Law(Mohammedan Law) by considering the representation sent by the Petitioner dated 24.10.2014.) Heard both sides. 2. Before Mediation, the parties have arrived at the following agreement/settlement and the details of the same are as under: ''The Petitioner A.Farhana's husband is no more. They have one female child Ayesha Suhaila, aged 6 years. The Petitioners Father-in-Law P.Gana Sekaran @ Amanullah, Respondent No.4 and Mother-in-L...
Arulmigu Virakaliamman Kovil Rep. by its Managing Trustee, N. Kanthasa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents Nos.2 and 4 herein from not to interfere with management and administration of the petitioner's temple and consequently to entrust the management of the temple to the petitioner herein as the 49 members of the administrative committee have elected 5 trustees and the petitioner herein as the Chair Person.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 02.06.2016, to the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid letter and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Tharani @ Tharanidevan Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Cudd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(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, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam in S.C.No.44 of 2014 dated 31.07.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.44 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 323 and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 31.07.2014, the trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment one month for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay of fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The case of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »