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.
Valli @ Veeravalli Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Mangalampett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.105 of 2012 on the file of the District Mahila Sessions court, Cuddalore. She stood charge for offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 11.03.2014, the trial Court convicted her under both the charges and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused Mrs.Valli @ Veeravalli is the wife of P.W.2. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Alamelu. She was the mother of P.W.2 and mother-in-law of the accused. Out of the wedlock, the ...
Rajeswari Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai and Another
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 Mandmus directing the second respondent to survey the Petitioner's property situated in T.S.No.74, Block No.95, Ponmeni Village, Madurai by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 28.3.2016.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the Petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 6.6.2016, to the Registry seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Muthu and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tir ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi issued summons to the petitioners herein, directing them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to keep peace and also to execute a bond for the amount mentioned in the summons. This notice is under challenge in this petition. Brief Facts: 2. Keezhapavoor is the village coming within the jurisdiction of Pavoorchathiram Police division. The people belong to various communities. There was a Kumbabishekam function in the Temple. In respect of dispute between two groups, cases came to be registered in Crime Nos.109 of 2009 and 110 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. These cases were in respect of incident happened on 15.03.2009 and 16.03.2009. 2.1. The Inspector of Police apprehended law and order problem on account of cases registered and requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate action under Section 107 Cr.P.C. From the records, the Revenue Divisional Officer,...
M/s. Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels (P) Limited Vs. The Assi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in TIN No.33681941761/2008-09, dated 06.11.2015, and quash the same as illegal and in violation of rules of natural justice.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.C.Natarajan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Manokara Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the preparation and sale of eatables and articles of food and drinks with the principal place of business at No.75 Arockyasamy Road East, Coimbatore. The petitioner also runs restaurants in other pla...
Kuppusamy Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the judgment dated 05.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.73 of 2012 by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Erode District at Bhavani.) S. Nagamuthu.J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Erode District at Bhavani. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 05.09.2012, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused was a resident of Kuduraikalmedu Village in Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. His son and daughter-in-law had alr...
A. Aandisamy Chettiar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2008 in A.S.No.55 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.) 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub Court, Virudhunagar in I.A.No.3 of 2008 in A.S.No.55 of 2007. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2003 before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar against the respondent for permanent injunction. After contest, the suit was dismissed on 05.02.2007. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2008 under Order 26 Rule 10(A) and Section 151 C.P.C., for expert opinion of the Will, which was marked as Ex.A.4. 3. Originally, the application was allowed. The respondent challenged the order before this Court in C.R.P(MD)No.1787 of 2008. This Cour...
K. Pandian Vs. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Admini ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 4th respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land to an extent of 2178 Sq.ft in Survey No. 65/2 in Kalanivasal Village , Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 6th respondent to take on file and register the documents in respect of the said lands.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made by the fourth respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land t...
G. Srinivasalu Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondent police to order production of the body and person of petitioner's daughter G.Jyothi, female, aged 16 years 11 months before this Court and set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu ,J. 1. The petitioner is the father of one Ms.G.Jyothi, aged hardly 16 years 11 months. Her date of birth is 11.06.2009. The detenue was studying in a local educational institution. It is alleged that on 24.01.2016, the second respondent eve teased her. That was reported by the detenue to her parents. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police in this regard. The second respondent was called for enquiry and he was warned. 2. Again the second respondent did not stop with that and he kidnapped the detenue on 06.04.2016 at 2.00 pm. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police in this regard. The first respondent registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2016 for girl missing. Th...
Sampath Kumar Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Erode District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment passed in S.C.No.147 of 2012 dated 20.02.2013, on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Court, Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.147 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Erode. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 20.02.2013, the Trial Court convicted the appellant on both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 2. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief,...
Easwari Vs. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to call for the records connected to the impugned order in W.P(MD)No.6069 of 2016 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of this Court and set aside the same and allow the writ petition.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner, whose writ petition is disposed of, by the learned Single Judge on 29-03-2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had two children, who got admitted to the 8th respondent School, which is a privately managed educational institution. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the said School Management was charging exorbitant amount as fee from the students. In other words, the School Management is fleecing the parents of the students on one ground or the other, instead of confining the collection of fee strictly to one prescribed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. Instead of logi...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »