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.
Viswambaran Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to change the date of birth as 21.05.1960 instead of 20.06.1955 and change the place of birth as Arayanthoppu instead of Pachallor-Kerala in the petitioner's passport and reissue the corrected passport within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, while he was at Kerala, he took a passport. It is his case that at the time of making an application, he inadvertently mentioned in the place of 'column of birth', his residence place as Pachaloor and also in the 'date of birth column', it was wrongly mentioned as 20.06.1955 and a passport was issued to him on 11.09.2001 in A9102876. After obtaining the passport, the petitioner went to Muscat for coolie work to eak out his livelihood and while he was at Muscat, his passport was about...
R. Madhu Vs. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Tharagampatti Sub Regist ...
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 Respondent to return the original document executed between the petitioner and Mr.Boopathy bearing Regn. No.P.33/2014 which was presented on 26.09.2014 for registration after duly registering the same and also in pursuance of the representation dated 08.07.2015 and render justice.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has given a letter, dated 08.06.2016, 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 Recording the aforesaid letter and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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....
Rajiv Gandhi @ Marimuthu Vs. Inspector of Police, Anaimalai Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore has referred the case in S.C.No.344 for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the accused Mr.Rajivgandhi @ Marimuthu (hereinafter referred to as the first accused). Mr.Rajivgandhi is the first accused and one Mr.Jothimani is the second accused in the case. As against the first accused, as many as three charges were laid for offences under Sections 302 (2 counts), 307 and 506(ii) IPC and as against the second accused, charges were laid for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 109 and r/w 34 IPC. During the pendency of the trial, the second accused died and thus, the charges against him stood abated. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the first accused alone. By judgment dated 30.03.2016, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Sections 302 IPC (2 counts), 307 IPC and 506(ii) IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC 2(counts), the Trial Court imposed dea...
Ganesan Vs. Muthu Buvaneswari and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order, dated 23.09.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and set aside the same as illegal.) 1. An husband, aggrieved by the dismissal of his Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, has filed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner Ganesan married the first respondent Muthu Buvaneswari in 2006. Dispute arose between both. The wife claimed maintenance for herself and for her daughter and son, who are respondents 2 and 3 in M.C.No.12 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. 3. In the maintenance case, Ganesan filed Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 for subjecting his wife and children to D.N.A test with regard to his paternity to respondents 2 and 3 through first respondent. 4. The learned Magistrate coming to the conc...
Neethipathi Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Aravayal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 14.3.2016 and initiate appropriate action in accordance with law and register a case and investigate the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.03.2016 in accordance with law. 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 one Ravichandran, using the innocence of the petitioner's father, created forged documents and obtained loan from Canara Bank for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-by impersonating the petitioner. When the Bank officials visited the house of the petitioner requesting to repay the loan, which was fraudulently obtained by Rav...
A. Selvi Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to annul the illegal document No.3889 dated 2015 registered in the 3rd respondent office as per the circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, she purchased a land in Sy.No.291/1A measuring about 90 cents, situate at Kollangudi Village, Kollangudi group, Kalaiyarkovil Sub-division, Sivagangai District, (by means of a registered sale deed dated 01.06.2006) for valid consideration from one Vincent, S/o.Manickam and the same was registered in the office of the third respondent/Sub Registrar, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District. The further case of the petitioner is that the said Vincent purchased the said land from one K.Arul by way of registe...
M. Nagaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughter named Manya, aged about 1 year and 10 months or her corpse, before this Court and hand over her to the petitioner.) 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the adoptive father of the minor, by name Manya, alleging that she is illegally detained by the eighth respondent. 2. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Tmt.Tamilselvi in 2000. Since the couple had no issues, they have decided to adopt the daughter of Thiru.Sanjaikumar, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. The child was given in adoption to the petitioner by executing a document on 03 June, 2015. The child was entrusted to the petitioner and his wife immediately after the execution of the adoption deed. 3. According to the petitioner, at about 07.00 a.m., on 01.05.2016, respondents 4 to 7 trespassed into his ho...
Best Money Gold Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.5766 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and to set aside the same and to provide any such relief.) 1. The complainant in a cheating case, aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in Cr.M.P.No.5766 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai has directed this revision. 2. There are two accused viz. A1 and A2. As per the prosecution version A1 sold considerable items of jewel to the defacto complainant. A2 is the maker of the jewel. Later defacto complainant lodged a complainant that what was sold to it is not pure gold. So a case of cheating has been registered by the police. 3. The company purchased the jewels without checking it and when it was melted it is found that it is a substandard jewel. The gold is in the form of ingot. Now, the petitioner seeks the interim custody of the ingot. This is a case of al...
L. Nirmala Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to immediately issue the passport applied under application number MD 1071655909912 without insisting for the consent letter from the father.) 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. No costs....
M. Poobathi Vs. The District Registrar, Co-operative Housing Board Lim ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(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 and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner, dated 2.6.2016 and to release the title deed and other documents which were given by the Petitioner at the time of receiving loan as security and further to direct the second respondent to sent necessary communication to the third respondent for removal of entry of Encumbrance Certificate in respect of Petitioner's loan transactions.) 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, he was sanctioned with a loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 21.03.2002 and 18.06.2002 respectively. Subsequently, he paid a sum of Rs.4,665/- p.m to the second respondent towards the instalment amount. 4. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that he had paid all the instalment amou...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »