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.
Jesudass Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.04.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 07.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that when the petitioner was in the process of clearing the bushes and plants in the land for enabling the surveyor to survey the land, the proposed accused persons abused the petitioner in filthy language, threatened with dire consequences and attempted to attack him with deadly weapons. Since no action was taken on the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the above relief. 4. In view of the s...
R. Senthil Vs. State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Ponneri and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to produce the petitioner's wife Mrs.Sankavi, W/o.R.Sendhil, aged about 16 years and set her at liberty.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner has stated in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit that one Sankavi is his wife. He has described her as his wife in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit also. According to him, he had fallen in love with Sankavi, who according to him was admittedly 16 years of age (vide paragraph No.2 of the affidavit). He would further submit that he married the minor Sankavi on 28.08.2015 at Sri Pachaivazhiamman Devasthanam, Krishnapuram, Pakkam, Villupuram District and thereafter, they were living happily together as husband and wife. 2. While things stood thus, the grandmother of the detenue, namely, the 6th respondent herein filed Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP.No.3195 of 2015 before this Court alleging that the minor girl had ...
Palanisamy and Others Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeals filed under section 372[4] Cr.P.C., against the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 26.11.2013 made in Sc.NO.187/2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.NO.818/2013 is the first accused ; the appellant in Crl.A.No.813/2013 is the second accused and the appellants in Crl.A.No.19/2014 are accused 3 and 9 in SC.No.187/2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam. They stood charged for the offences as detailed below:- Sl.No.Rank of the AccusedCharges framed under section1A1 and A2120 [B] IPC2A1, A2, A3 and A9120 [B] IPC3A3 to A8364 IPC4A3 to A8302 r/w 34 IPC5A1, A2 and A9302 r/w 120 [B] IPC6A3 to A8201 IPC7A1177 IPC8A1182 IPC9A1203 IPCBy judgment dated 26.11.2013, the Trial Court convicted them for various offences as detailed below:- Sl.No.Rank of the AccusedConviction under sectionSentence Awarded1A112...
S. Hariharan Vs. The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conduct the survey and put up the survey stone in the Petitioner's property in S.No.1957/1, Moolakaraipatti Part II Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District 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. According to the Petitioner, after his father's demise, patta was transferred in the name of himself, his brothers and sisters. Therefore, they want to know about the boundaries and actual position of the land in S.No.1957/1 at Moolakaraipatti Part-II Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. In this regard, the Petitioner has projected an application to the respondent/Thasildar, Taluk Office, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District in person on 5.2.2016 to survey the aforesaid property and to put up the survey stone. Till ...
S. Gurumoorthy Vs. Minor Ramya and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 03.02.2016 passed in M.C.No.67 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Trichy.) 1. A father wants to give less to his children. That is the scope of this revision petition. 2. The father of the respondents (revision petitioner) is employed in Southern Railways. The children's mother is also employed as a staff nurse. The children are with her. There is fight between the spouses but not with the children. The children have sought for monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- each. However, the trial Court had awarded them Rs.4,000/- each. 3. Legally their father is bound to maintain them. But, if the other spouse is employed the obligation to take care of the children is mutual. She cannot simply dump the children on the head of their father. 4. Now, in this case, the children are studying in some schools. One is studying in the Railway School. After deductions, th...
V. Manoharan Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 and not to disturb the petitioner work allotted process pertaining to the removal of Seemaikaruvela at Rasingaperi Pond and the place of Kadambankulam and consequently, grant permission to do the work.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner, although he was appointed as a contractor for removal of 'Seemai Karuvelamara' projects, the respondents 2 to 4 without conducting enquiry, are not issuing the work allotment order and therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents 1 to 5 on 17.02.2016, with a copy being marked to the concerned authorities, whereby and whereunder, made a request that no hardship be caused to him by the Government Officials in regard to the removal of 'Seemai Karuvela trees' (as per the tender taken out by him). 3. In view of th...
Arun Kumar Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records which culminated in the order bearing reference No. 171 of 2016 dt 15.4.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith register the decree and judgment dt 17.11.2014 passed in O.S. No. 715 of 2014 in favour of the petitioner passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif Salem without insisting the period of limitation enumerated in Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in (A.K. Gnana Sekar vs. Joint II Sub Registrar Cuddalore) 2007 (2) TCJ 68 (Mad-DB).) 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would aver among other things that he is one of the beneficiaries of the settlement deed da...
The Parish Priest, St. Mary Magdalane Church, Dindigul District and An ...
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 2nd respondent to issue Patta in the name of the 1st petitioner Church in respect of land at Survey No. 133 of Vakkampatti Village, Dindigul District admeasuring 4.26 ares on the basis of the proposal submitted by the 1st petitioner dated 03.12.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's church is in existence for more than 200 years. Indeed, the whole church building is constructed in Sy.No.133, admeasuring 4.26 ares and at survey Nos.138/11 and 138/19, admeasuring 27 cents of Vakkampatti Village, Dindigul District and the same is in possession of the church from the date of its establishment. 4. The real grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent/Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Dindigul District is not passing any orders on the application submitted by ...
Vellaisamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Sivagangai District and Another
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 respondents to measure the lands measuring 3 cents in survey No. 35/1B2 and 27 cents in survey no. 36/1A1 situated in Sirumarudhur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the patta No. 1290 within the stipulated period and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the land measuring 1 acre 52 cents in Sy.No.35/1 and 65 cents in Sy.No.36/1 in Sirumarudhur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District are originally belonged to him ancestrally. He sold an extent of 48 cents of southern side in Sy.No.35/1 and 32 cents of Sy.No.36/1 to one Karuppiah, S/o.Kalimuthan Ambalam through sale deed dated 21.03.1977. Subsequently, the said Karuppiah sold the properti...
D. Rajasekaran Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in CMP No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same.) "TAMIL 1. [As right conduct and disciplined way of life lead to eminence, it should be cherished and preserved carefully than even one's life.] 2. This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in CMP No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same. 3. Ex hypothesi, the staff of the Court and the Presiding Officer are like the siamese twins, in that, one cannot exist without the other. They partner together for the cause of justice. Mutual respect for each other and strict adherence to the command structure is sine qua non for the smooth functioning of the system. Unfortunately, Mr.D.Rajasekaran, the Central Nazir of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›
- Last »