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.
S. Pasumpon Pandian Vs. Selloor K. Raju and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records from the lower Court and to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.121 of 2016 dated 27.01.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.V, Madurai in Cr.No.74 of 2016 on the file of the second respondent Police by allowing this revision.) 1. A-1 challenges the dismissal of his Crl.M.P.No.121 of 2016 filed under Section 310 Cr.P.C by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. 2. On 09.01.2016, at about 11.30 p.m, near the Madurai West M.L.A's office situate in Sammatipuram junction, Madurai city, near the bye pass Road, explosion took place. It is suspected to be due to hurling of country made bombs. 3. In this connection, the Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2016 under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In this connection, eight persons were booked. 4. A1 has filed Crl.M.P.No.121 of 2016 seeking local inspection...
Poovarasi Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer:Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.491 of 2010 dated 15.02.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, sole accused in S.C.No.491 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, who stands convicted for offences under Sections 364 and 302 r/w Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. r/w Section 201 I.P.C., has come up with this appeal, challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1.P.W.4 and P.W.1 are the husband and wife respectively. Th...
Sathavu Pandian Vs. Kalyani and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, in Cr.M.P.No.8606 of 2012, dated 06.10.2012, and set aside the same.) 1. The complainant in a private complaint case aggrieved by the dismissal of his private complaint in Crl.M.P.No.8606 of 2012 has directed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and son-in-law of the 2nd respondent herein. It is alleged that certain unidentified persons have slapped him at the place of occurrence. When questioned, they have stated to have told him that they were sent by the first respondent as mercenaries. 3. The learned Magistrate, considering the allegations in the complainant's sworn statement, having found absence of a prima facie case, dismissed the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach of the Magistrate is ...
Ahulas Sunnath Val Jamath, Tirunelveli Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, ...
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 1 and 2 to hold elections to the petitioner Wakf by secret ballot method by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.03.2016, within the time that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the President of Ahulas Sunnath Val Jamath, Jamia mosque, Mela Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, which is a notified wakf under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The said wakf is administered by an administrative body headed by a President for a tenure of three years. The President and office-bearers are selected by elections which are held every 3 years under the supervision of the third respondent. The petitioner was elected as President in the year 2007 and subsequently in the elections that took place in 2011, by m...
G. Maragatham Vs. The HDFC Bank Limited, duly represented by its Autho ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records relating to STC No.733 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to call for the entire records relating to STC No.733 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is no more (expired) and therefore, the petition may be dismissed as abated. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as abated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
G. Manohar Raj and Another Vs. State represented by, The Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in respect of C.C. No.76 of 2009 dated 31.03.2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, The Nilgiris.) 1. ( Tamil ) [It may be possible to survive even if burnt by fire; but, survival is not possible for those who offend the great men.] 2. This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in respect of C.C. No.76 of 2009 dated 31.03.2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor, the Nilgiris. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 4. The facts obtaining in this case are indeed sordid and they amply demonstrate the vulnerability of today's teaching community. 5.1 Ashwin, a student of Class V in Holy Innocents High School, Wellington, the Nilgiris, was found to be very mischievous and ill-behaved and therefore, his tea...
Muji @ Mujibir Rehman Vs. State Rep: by Inspector of Police Panruti Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 15.04.2014 made in S.C.No.198 of 2013 on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.198 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted him under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 449 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the pros...
Murugan Vs. The State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Thirupparan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai dated 27.05.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.670 of 2016 in Crime No.312 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and set aside the same and hand over the custody of girl namely Devayani aged about 17 years to the petitioner.) 1. The trial Court should not pass orders on hypothetical consideration. Supposition and presumption should not be basis for passing judicial orders. 2. Judicial discretion must be exercised based on sound reasoning. Judicial orders should not be based on air. Judicial orders should not be based on apprehension, fear, astrology and assumption. 3. Now, in this revision, a father, whose daughter is kept in Home, other words, who has been remanded to Home, seeks her release. 4. Daughter of the revision petitioner came to be concerned in a case of elopement with her lover. The accused is ...
J. Rajammal Vs. The Chairperson/Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai ...
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 pass orders to grant property situated at Plot No.4, Block B3 at S.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin Revenue District under the provisions of The Tamilnadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958, by way of issuing patta to the petitioner on the basis of the representation dated 13.1.2016 sent by the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, she is doing coolie work and that the 10 acres of land situated at Sy.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District belonged to Boodan Yagna Board. Furthermore, for more than 12 years, she is enjoying the aforesaid property at plot No.4, Block B3 by rearing pigs. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is fully deserved to obtain the said land from t...
Abdul Jalal and Another Vs. Mohammed Idris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer:- Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, in O.S.No.136 of 2009.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2012, passed in O.S.No.136 of 2009, by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Cuddalore. 2. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted Original Suit No.136 of 2009, for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of both 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties, wherein the present appellants are arrayed as defendants. 3. The epitome of the averments made in the plaint may be stated like thus: The plaintiff and first defendant are the sons of one Abdul Muthalif. Both the plaintiff and first defendant have jointly purchased 10 cents of land by virtue of a sale deed, dated 30.4.2003, and subsequently, by way of obtaining loan jointly from a Bank, they built up 'marriage mandapa...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »