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.
Suresh Kumar Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Namakka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, who stands convicted for offence under Sections 436, 302 and 307 of IPC [4 counts] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 436 of IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for each count for offence under Section 307 of IPC [4 counts], has come up with this criminal appeal. 2.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The accused is the younger brother of P.W.1. Their father was one Sri.Jayagopal [P.W.6]. P.W.1 as well as the accused are marrie...
Dhanasekaran Vs. Sub Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Stati ...
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 and to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, in Cr.M.P.No.966 of 2016 in Crime No.54 of 2016, dated 01.04.2016 in so far as refusing to handover the two oxen to the petitioner herein.) 1. In this revision, partial allowing of a property return petition is being challenged by the property owner. 2. In this part of the State, more particularly in Sivagangai District, Bull Race has become famous. It has also become famous for various legal battles that went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now, life of two oxen are involved in this case. Devakottai Taluk Police registered the case against the revision petitioner also as he is alleged to have inhumanly treated and harassed the oxen. As part of investigation, the Rekla Race Cart and two oxen were seized. 3. The revision petitioner moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, filing Cr.M.P.No.966 ...
K.P. Jeyapaul Asan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 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 1st respondent to dispose the appeal dated 12.02.2016 given by the petitioner within a stipulated time fixed 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, he gave a petition to the first respondent, on 14.11.2011 to cancel the registration of the forged partition deed No.1538/1976 and the sale deed registered thereafter on the basis of the forged partition deed in terms of circular No.67, dated 03.01.2011 of Registration Department. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the first respondent/Inspector General of Registration had forwarded the petition of the petitioner dated 14.11.2011 to the second respondent/District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, to dispose of his petition and that the second respondent had passed an erroneous order on 31.12.2015 nega...
M/s. Atlas Logistics Private Limited, Rep. by its HR Manager Ganesh Na ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandmus calling for the records of the second respondent in C.No.VIII/13/43/2001-CHAL, dated 18.08.2015 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to include the name of Shri P.Venkatesan as Power of Attorney Holder in terms of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.) 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. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Chennai Vs. All India Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in File No.SRO/1-697567321/AB dated 30.4.2016 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to grant Extension of Approval for the Academic Year 2016-17 in Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology , Mangadu, Chennai-600 069.) 1. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The deponent of the affidavit, namely the Principal of Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Chikkarayapuram, Near Mangadu, Chennai-600069, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, averred as follows: 2.1. The College was established by Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust in the year 1996 and was given approval by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The College/Institution was started with the sole intention to spread technical knowledge in various disciplines of Engineering and Technology. The instit...
Arokia Swamy @ Mahendiran and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Supe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, in S.C.No.76 of 2012 dated 04.09.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.76 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District. The trial court framed as many as four charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 498-A of IPC against A1 to A3; the second charge was under Section 302 of IPC against A1; the third charges was under Section 201 of IPC against A1; and the fourth charges was under Section 203 of IPC against A1. The trial court, by judgement dated 04.09.2013, convicted A1 under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [no default sentence was imposed] for offence under section 498-A of IPC; to un...
Rajesh and Others Vs. The State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, Al ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, to pass an order revising the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Nagercoil, dated 26.02.2016 made in C.M.P.No.1201 of 2016 forthwith.) 1. This revision is to challenge the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, directing the Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to register FIR, investigate and report. 2. The revision petitioners 1 to 4 were shown as respondents in the private complaint. The fall out of the said direction is initiation of investigation. 3. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners have filed this revision. 4. The direction in question has been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If information of commission of a cognizable offence is given to police, FIR has to be registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. If the Station House Officer failed to do so, the informant can go to the higher police officer. In such ci...
M. Parvathi 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 order in respect of property situated at Plot No.7, 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.7, Block B3 by rearing pigs. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is fully deserved to obtain the said land fr...
M. Johnson Vs. E. Pushpavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2011 of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore made in A.S.No.124 of 2009 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009 made in O.S.No.793 of 2006 by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance and executed the suit agreement on 18.06.2003. It is his further case that even though he prepared the draft sale deed and sent it to the defendant in the month of September 2003 itself, for the defendant to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated in the agreement, the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff sent suit notice on 06.07.2004 calling upon the d...
Mahalingam Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.93 of 2010 on the file of he learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 09.11.2011, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with his Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Nithya. She was the wife of one Selvamani. Mr.Selvamani's father is the elder brother of the accused. Between these two families, there was a dispute in respect of an ancestral property for quite some time. For the marriage of the sister of Nithya, the accused was not invited. This is stated to be the immediate provocation for the occurrence. (b) On 15.05.2009, accordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »