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.
Siraj Nisha Beevi Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue joint patta in the name of the Petitioner and her brothers in respect of landed properties in S.Nos.130/6, 130/7 and 131/1 and issue separate patta in the name of the Petitioner and her brothers in respect of landed properties in S.Nos.322/9 for an extent of 00135 sq.meter and S.No.322/8 for an extent of 00115 sq.meter, in Ananthoor Village and Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, her mother died on 26.6.2015 leaving behind her two daughters and three sons namely, the Petitioner, Ramjan Begam, Sheik Abdullah, Hakkim Abuthahir, Ajmal Khan and one Sarijal Kani as her legal heirs. It appears that the Petitioner's mother filed earlier W.P.No.18048/2014 and this Court on 1...
Indian Overseas Bank, represented by its Chief Manager/ Constituted At ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent bearing file No. ECIR/ CEZO/60/2010 dated 07.12.2015, quash the same.) 1. The petitioner bank has filed this writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order dated 07.12.2015 issued by the first respondent by which the first respondent provisionally attached the sum of Rs.1.71 crore which is available with the petitioner bank for a period of 180 days in terms of Section 5 (1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 2. For disposal of this writ petition, certain facts which are necessary and germane are stated hereunder:- (i) The petitioner bank - Indian Overseas Bank is a body corporate incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and it is transacting in banking business through its various branches spread across the country and als...
S. Rajaraman Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Principal Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.02.2016 positively and to transfer the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant, within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.02.2016, to transfer him to the post of Junior Assistant, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The petitioner's father was working as Headmaster, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Kattumannarkoil Panchayat Union, and he died in harness, on 30.05.2003. The petitioner was appointed as Driver, on compassionate ground, on 30.10.2008, in the office of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore. Even at the time ...
Commissioner M.C. James, Tirunelveli District Vs. John Murary
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, in C.M.P.No.2906 of 2016 in C.C.No.223 of 2010 and set aside the order, dated 13.04.2016.) 1. As the point involved is narrowly covered by legal decisions, we shall dispose of this revision petition today at the admission stage itself. 2. The accused in a defamation case challenges dismissal of his petition to recall the N.B.W. issued against him since he has not surrendered himself before the Court. 3. Earlier, in N.B.W. recall petitions, surrender petition and surrender of the accused was also insisted upon. Now, it is not a condition precedent to do so (See S.Sundar vs. State, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, 2016-1-L.W.(Crl) 506). N.B.Ws., are also issued to enforce the attendance of the accused, who have failed to attend the Court. When the accused expresses his inclination to appear before the Cou...
Mani Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakum ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(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 09.12.2015 made in CMP No.6797 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, and set aside the same.) 1. Mani, the revision petitioner canvases the correctness of the order of the learned udicial Magistrate, Eranial in dismissing his return of property petition in Crl.M.P.No.6797 of 2015. 2. A four wheeler carrying two oxen and 14 cows from Melapalayam to Palliyadi in Kanyakumari District was stopped. A criminal case was booked under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. The cattle were handed over to Brindavan Goshala at Thozhicode. The accused who claimed to be owner of the cattle filed property return petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that whether they were taken for slaugh...
Rajammal and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the Respondent Police not to harass and to interfere with the petitioner's civil right in bearing S.Nos.157/2A1, 157/2A12, 157/2C, 157/2E, 158/2B2 and 158/2B19 in Kuthakottai Group, Ramanathapuram District.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent police not to harass and to interfere with the petitioner's civil right in bearing S.Nos.157/2A1, 157/2A12, 157/2C, 157/2E, 158/2B2 and 158/2B19 in Kuthakottai Group, Ramanathapuram District. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), based on the complaint lodged by one Murugammal as against the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted and it has been subsequently closed, as the matter pertains to civil dispute. He has further submitted that since the complaint has already been closed, there is no scope for harassment at all. 4. Recording the submission made by the lea...
V. Ramiah Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Madurai Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the Petitioner's petition dated 8.5.2015 to effect sub-division of the property of the Petitioner ad-measuring northern 287 sq.ft out of 875 sq.ft in S.No.138/6 of Chettikulam Village and issue separate patta. 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, the property measuring 875 sq.ft in old S.No.55(corresponding to UDR S.No.138/6) of Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai earlier belong to his mother Amma Pillai @ Veeramahali Ammal by means of registered Settlement Deed, dated 20.8.19057 executed by her father. It appears that in the Settlement Deed, this property is described as first item. 4. The Petitioner's mother died on 1.1.2016 and his father pre-deceased her. His mother died intestate leav...
Andi @ Potti Andi Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.60 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and set aside the judgment dated 09.04.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.60 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. There were two other accused by name Panchali and Sekar @ Chandrasekar and they were arrayed as A.2 and A.3 respectively. A.1 stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 I.P.C., and A.2 and A3 stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w.109 IPC. By judgment dated 09.04.2014, the trial Court acquitted A.2 and A.3 from all the charges however, convicted A.1 for offences under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 341 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month ...
The State, represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed in Special Case No.1 of 2006, dated 09.06.2014 on the file of the Special-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vellore.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused in Special Case No.1 of 2006, dated 09.06.2014 on the file of the Special-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vellore. The respondent/accused has been acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. in respect of the charges framed against him for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Before going into the details of the evidence, the brief case of the prosecution is stated hereunder: The respondent/accused was working as Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi, Vellore District. The de-facto complainat (who was examined as P.W.2 before the t...
N. Mohammed Junaid and Others Vs. The Special Commissioner for Land Ad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 6.10.2015 for re-classifying the property in S.No.235 of 149, Eripurakarai Village, West East Side, Samuthiraveli, Veppal, Tharisu ad-measuring to an extent of 7 acres and 63 cents, having new S.No.235/2 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order in directing the first respondent/The Special Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 006 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner, dated 6.10.2015, wherein, a request was made for re-classification of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »