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.
G. Jenitta Packia Seeli Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for a direction directing the respondent to secure all the accused those who are involved in Crime No.3 of 2015, pending on the file of the respondent police.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the respondent to arrest the accused in Crime No.3 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and Section 4 of DP Act. 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 submitted that though a complaint has been registered as early as on 06.03.2015 in Crime No.3 of 2015, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner that a) her in-laws abused her in filthy language; b) threatened her with dire consequences, when she requested them to return her sridhana jewels, the respondent Police did not take any steps to arrest them and to rec...
Sembattai @ Saravanan and Another Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 08.07.2013 made in S.C.No.191 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Erode, by allowing these appeals.) Common Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.187 of 2014 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.35 of 2014 is the second accused in S.C.No.191 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. They stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 08.07.2013, the Trial Court convicted them under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with the above appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief...
Dhanalakshmi Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tirunelvel ...
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 21.12.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.3507 of 2014 in C.C.No.73 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and set aside the same as illegal.) 1. This revision arises out of dismissal of a discharge petition filed in Cr.M.P.No.3507 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli. 2. On 28.12.2013, at about 6.15 p.m., the defacto complainant, a women S.I. was doing vehicle check up at Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli. At that time the accused came in a two-wheeler. The woman S.I. asked her about her not wearing helmet. Wordy altercation took place. The defacto complainant/woman S.I. lodged complaint alleging that when she demanded why she was not wearing helmet, the accused called her a whore, should she live by getting money from her, she also threatened that she will make her to loose her job and because of that, the accused has prevented...
A. Kannan Vs. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Law an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of a Writ of Declaration declaring Section 24 Cr.P.C and the subsequent state amendments made by the State of Tamil Nadu is unconstitutional in as much as giving unfettered executive discretion in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders/Government Advocates appearing for the State before the Honourable High Courts and also in the Subordinate Courts without assessing their ability, knowledge, experience, capability of handling cases in a manner known to law and without giving equal opportunity to all the Advocate aspiring for the posts and to declare all the appointments of Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders/Government Advocates made by the State of Tamil Naduas null and void made from 2011 to till date and consequently direct the respondents herein to frame Law and Rules to select and appoint the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders/Government Advocates in a...
A. Chinnasamy and Others Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District ...
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 respondents 1 to 3 to take all appropriate actions against the respondents 4 to 10 and consequently to declare the Katta Panchayat held by the respondents 4 to 10 and his men unconstitutional, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights to life and livelihood guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and pass such other orders including an award for adequate compensation and costs.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioners 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 Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
M.S. Haja Rasool Vs. Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Nannil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer:- Appeal suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree, dated 23.1.2004, passed by the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam made in L.A.O.P.No.41 of 1996.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the award dated 23.1.2004, passed in L.A.O.P.No.41 of 1996, by the Principal Sub Court/Land Acquisition Tribunal, Nagapattinam. 2. The first respondent herein, as land acquisition officer, has acquired the lands comprised in Survey No.35/6A, Enakudi Village, ad-measuring 1 Acre 90 Cents and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,56,336/-. Against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference has been made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same has been taken on file in L.A.O.P.No.41 of 1996, on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 3. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after considering the divergent evidence available on record, has fixed a compensation of Rs.2,000/- per Cent and in order to...
M. Venkatesan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, Perambalur District in S.C.No.41 of 2011 dated 29.08.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, Perambalur District, has come up with this criminal appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. The trial court has, however, acquitted him from the charge under Section 307 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. 2.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.EIakkiya. The appellant/accused is her husband. They have a female child. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She was residing at Asur Village in Kunnam Taluk. Th...
A. Raja Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai in R.C.S. No.2111 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013 as devoid of merits and consequently direct the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai to take cognizance in Crime No.358 of 2010 and further to direct to try and dispose of the same in accordance with law.) 1. This revision presents infraction of legal procedures in passing the impugned order. 2. The Revision Petitioner Raja's father lodged a police complaint, upon which the third respondent viz., Inspector, DCP, Madurai investigated the case in Crime No.358 of 2010. Witnesses were examined. The investigation officer filed a negative final report on the ground that it is a Mistake of Fact. But in passing orders thereon the Magistrate committed Mistake of Law. 3. The learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order: LANGUAGE 4. In a police case after registering the F.I.R., a...
M. Rakku Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 07.09.2015 and to grant free house site patta to the petitioner's house in door No.3/594, situated at Natham Sy.No.61 of Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a landless poor and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the Government land i.e Grama Natham in Sy.No.61, situated at Annai Indhira Nagar, Sakkimangalam Village for more than thirty years and had constructed a house in door No.3/594. She had applied for issuance of patta before the first respondent/District Collector, Madurai on 07.09.2015 in respect of the property in question. Her application wa...
B. Raghumaran (Rep. by his Power Agent, R. Bharathidasan) Vs. Pushpaba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
T. Mathivanan, J. 1. This memorandum of second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 and made in the appeal in A.S. No. 30 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 174 of 2010, whereas the respondents are the defendants. 3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, whereas, the respondents be referred to as the defendants, where ever, the context so require, as it is the character of the parties to the suit. 4. Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs to declare the Sale Deed dated 21.03.2007, which is said to have been executed in favour of the first defendant by the second defendant as null and void, not binding upon him and consequently to restrain the defendants from making further encumbrance of the suit properties by any means. 5. The defendants had contested the suit by...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »