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.
Minor Udvaithaa Saai and Another Vs. The Revenue Division Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: in W.P.No.9230 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officers, employees, subordinates, agents or any other persons claiming and/or acting under them, from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, including the right deal with, the lands admeasuring an extnt of 0.25 acres or 10900 square feet bounded on the north by lands settled in favour of Dheeksheta Sai.V, south by Co-operative Society Building, East by M.Mangalagowri land and west by Panchayath Road comprised in Survey No.144/7 measuring 0.83 acres or thereabouts, situate at No.81, Nallathur Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kanchipuram District, within the Sub-Registration District of Thirukazhukundram and Registration District of Chengalpattu which absolutely belongs to the petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.9232 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 ...
Murali @ Ponnuchamy Vs. The Sub Divisional Executive, Magistrate and A ...
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 and set aside the order passed by the first respondent in M.C. No.A5/301/2015 on 27.01.2016.) 1. The revision petitioner, who is alleged to have breached the bond executed by him for keeping peace and good behaviour and who has been jailed, vide orders of the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Assistant Collector, Sivakasi Virudhunagar District / 1st respondent, in M.C.No.A5/301/2015, dated 27.01.2016, has directed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner belongs to Rajapalayam. He is involved in so many Ganja cases. On 05.06.2015, Rajapalayam North Police / 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.299 of 2015, under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. He was produced before the 1st respondent / Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Assistant Collector, Sivakasi Virudhunagar District. He has been directed to execute a bond under Section 117 Cr.P.C., for one year covering the period f...
Senthil kumar Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai to proceed the case expeditiously in C.C.No. 241 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court Manamadurai and dispose the case within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. Starting from 12.08.2013 followed by 23.09.2013, 04.11.2013, 13.01.2014, 10.02.2014, 01.04.2014, 09.06.2014, 20.08.2014, 03.11.2014, 02.02.2015, 27.04.2015, 10.07.2015, 05.10.2015, 05.01.2016 and 29.03.2016, all these entries direct fresh summon to L.Ws.1 to 3 without detailing as to what happened to the summons issued to L.Ws.1 to 3. There are only totally 10 witnesses and when the offence is under Sectioin 294(b), 420, 353, 506(ii) IPC, the accused claim that the learned Additional District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai ought to have disposed of the case at an early point of tim...
S. Suguna Vs. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore
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 respondent to return the jewels which was pledged in jewel loan account nos. 1) JL19g200660522 2) JL19g20070373 and 3) JL19g20070321 based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2016 within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the respondent/Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore is dispensed with. 3. According to the petitioner, her only son Andrews Thomas Prem Kumar was working as Office Assistant in Karunya Engineering College at Coimbatore. At that time, her son opened an account in the respondent/Bank bearing Account No.61372200014704 and operated his account. Further, he pledged his jewels in his account number with the respondent/Bank for his medical treatment, detailed as follows: i) on 17.10.2006 in jewel loan account No.JL19g20060522 for Rs.8,000/-; ii) On 16.0...
C. Chidambaram Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable En ...
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 Certiorari calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned tender notification issued by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1152/16/C2, dated 19.05.2016 and to quash the same insofar as condition Nos. 10 and 11 are concerned.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned tender notification issued by the Second Respondent/The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Thirukkoil, Palani, Dindigul District in reference in Na.Ka.No.1152/16/C2, dated 19.05.2016. 3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in the impugned tender notification, dated 19.05.2016 issued by the Second Respondent/Temple, the condition Nos.10 and 11 are highly unjustifiable, unreasonable and furthermore, it is a deliberat...
Vignesh Kumar Vs. Indira and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the order made in M.C.No.62 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, dated 31.08.2015.) 1. An husband, who was upset by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in directing him to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife/first respondent and Rs.2,500/- per month to the second respondent/daughter, totalling Rs.3,500/- per month, has directed this revision. 2. The spouses are now living separately. Their daughter, who is three years old, is now with first respondent. They have sought for maintenance. 3. The trial Court noticing the financial position of the revision petitioner, granted them monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,500/- to the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is jobless. He is selling towels in Coutralam. He is also assisting his father. He gets only a meagre income...
National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28.10.2015 made in W.P.(MD).No.18550 of 2014 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD)No.18550/2014: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, in I.A.No.134/2014, C.P.No.7/2014 dated 09.10.2014 and quash the same.) 1. The dispute between the workman the second respondent and the management being the appellant is pending consideration before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. In those proceedings, the appellant desired to seek assistance of a Counsel which was not agreed to by the workman appearing in person. This has given rise to a spate of litigations by the appellant management one after the other seeking to raise the same issue. 3. The request of the appellant management having been declined by the Labour Court, the same ...
N. Pandiarajan Vs. Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Rep. ...
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 respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent and to forbear him from doing all the illegal activities and illegal transmission of Arasu Cable TV in Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk in Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2016 within a time to be fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to 5th respondent is dispensed with. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a registered Multi System Operator (MSO and LCO) under the first respondent/Corporation Limited and having his control over room at Door No.7, Ward No.8, Alagarsamy Kovil Street at Gudalur and running cable TV business, under the name and style of Friends Cables through getting periodical license from the Postmaster, Head Post Office, Bodinayakkanur. 4. It comes to be known that some of the local...
V. Arul Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, made in S.C.No.75 of 2012 dated 28.06.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.75 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. By judgment dated 28.06.2013, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with his Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the pros...
Baranichandran and Others Vs. Susila
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 Crl.M.P.No.3881 of 2015 in UFCA/2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, dated 29.03.2016, and set aside the same.) 1. The husband and his parents in a D.V.Act case are before us, since their delay condonation petition in preferring appeal as against the order of the learned Magistrate has been dismissed. 2. The respondent is fighting with her husband, so also her in-laws. It is a family dispute. In this connection, she sought for certain reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. The learned Magistrate seems to have granted certain reliefs in favour of the wife and minor son. This was not liked by the husband, so also her in-laws. So, they wanted to prefer appeal as against the said order. In this connection, they are late comers by 6 days. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, considered it libera...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »