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. Lakshmanan Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.11 of 2013 pending on the file of the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.943 of 2013, dated 03.02.2016.) 1. Challenging the order of dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 239 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.943 of 2013 in C.C.No.11 of 2013, by order dated 03.02.2016, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder: (a) The petitioner herein is A-1 in C.C.No.11 of 2013. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/A-1 (V.Lakshmanan) and also against A-2 (R.Padmanaban) for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 465 and 467 read with 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner/A-1 worked as Special Officer of the Tamil...
L. Palani Vs. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies Villupuram a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.10.2015, to furnish the relevant documents/materials based on which charges were framed, so as to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation effectively in the matter and to pass orders, within a time frame.) Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent development, viz., the enquiry has been conducted, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous and hence, the Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
Vijay Jeritha Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.848 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, in Crime No.67 of 2016, on the file of the Inspect of Police, Fort (Crime) Police Station, Trichy, dated 10.03.2016.) 1. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5482 of 2016, dated 31.03.2016, now this revision has been directed challenging the bail cancellation order, dated 10.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, in C.M.P.No.848 of 2016. 2. The petitioner, who is stated to be a lady pick-pocket, is an accused under Section 379 I.P.C. She was granted bail with conditions to appear before the respondent Police daily at 10 a.m., for 30 days. It seems that she has breached the said condition. She has not complied with the condition for 21 days. In the circumstances, the Investigation Officer filed C.M.P.No.848 of 2016 to cancel her bail. 3. ...
Thangam @ Thangathai Vs. M. Subiramaniya @ Subiramani
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 pertaining to the order passed in M.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of the learned Family Court, Madurai, dated 10.02.2010, and set aside the order consequently enhance the maintenance amount.) 1. The revision petitioner dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, Madurai, in M.C.No.1 of 2004, has directed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner and the respondent are spouses. They have become a warring couples. The result of the battle is the outcome of the maintenance order granting monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the revision petitioner. She feels it is less. She wants more. That is why, this revision. 3. On the other hand, the respondent has other side of the coin. It is stated that the respondent is superannuated from an ordinary post of Messenger in a Bank. Prior to his retirement, after deductions, he received only Rs.2,000/- per month ...
Malini Vs. The State by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondent to register FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 12.04.2016 in CSR No.203/2016 dated 17.04.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to register the case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 12.04.2016 in CSR No.203/2016 dated 17.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while she was going in a bike along with her husband and daughter, the proposed accused persons intercepted and had beaten the petitioner's husband saying that the amount paid by the petitioner's husband to Vignesh to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- will not be repaid by Vignesh and that the petitioner's husband should not demand the money back; when this act was sought to be prevented by the petitioner, they were threatened with dire consequences. 4. Acco...
K. Shanthi Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order vide No. Pa.Mu.No.15109/2014/D1 dated 20.11.2014 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and directing the respondent to pass an order on merits on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2015 as per the provisions of Hindu Law of Inheritance to issue fresh legal heir certificate in the petitioner's name since she is the sole class I legal heir and pass such further or other orders.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, her husband deserted her and her children very long back and eloped with her servant maid and never cared about the family. Apart from that, her only son K.Jaiganesh Ram suddenly expired on 26.12.2013 due to mental agony and shock due to the negligent attitude of her husband. In fact, her husband had not attended even the cremation of her beloved son K.Jaiganesh...
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and Another Vs. A. Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.9910 of 2011 dated 30.09.2011.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.09.2011, passed in W.P.No.9910 of 2011, by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The respondent herein, as writ petitioner, has filed Writ Petition No.9910 of 2011, on the file of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus so as to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.10.2010, passed by the second appellant herein and quash the same. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent/petitioner has sent an application to the second appellant/second respondent, on 17.4.2008, to register the Society mentioned therein. But the second appellant/second respondent has failed to send any communication with regard to registration and abruptly passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2010, wh...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner primarily contends that the election notification and valid nomination circular were issued without constituting election sub-committee, as per Rule 4(ii) of the State Banks' Staff Union By-laws and Rules, 2010. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the order dated 24.05.2016 in W.MP.Nos.16145 and 16146 of 2016 in W.P.No.18397 of 2016 (Principal Seat), wherein, at paragraph No.7, it is ordered as follows: 7. Hence, there shall be an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from conducting the Election as per the 36th General Council list of valid nominations dated 20.05.2016, without forming the Election Committee, as per the bye-law. 4. In the main writ petition, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for passing of an order by this Court in restraining the respondents from conducting the election in 36th General Council to be held on 11th and ...
Thangaraj Vs. The Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.4.2016.) 1. To avoid an avoidable delay, since no adverse orders are passed against the fifth respondent, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with. 2. According to the petitioner, he is running Arasu Cable TV Network in B Mettur Village Panchayat Limits and he is a licensed holder and the same is in currency. The fifth respondent although a licensed holder, his license pertains only to Alathudaiyampatti Village limit. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent, on the basis of the license obtained in his favour with respect to Alathudaiyampatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk has now chosen to extend the service to B Mettur Village, Thuraiyur and thereby invades into the petitioner's business. Furthermore, the fifth respondent is extending the service to the peop...
Manoharan Vs. S.P. Chohkalingam Chettiyar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 15.09.2005, made in E.A.No.278 of 2003 in E.P.No.77 of 2001 in O.S.No.83 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 15.09.2005, made in E.A.No.278 of 2003 in E.P.No.77 of 2001 in O.S.No.83 of 1988. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.83 of 1988, for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed on 19.01.1990. 3. The respondent/plaintiff obtained decree on 19.01.1990 against the petitioner for recovery of money. The respondent filed E.P.No.77 of 2001 for arrest and detainment of the petitioner in civil prison. According to the respondent, he could not execute the warrant of arrest and therefore he filed E.A.No.278 of 2003, for amendment of the Sl.No.10 in the EP, to include...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »