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.
Kayalvizhi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she fell in love with one Ravikumar for 7 years, which subsequently ended in their marriage; that the petitioner's father, being a Doctor, is opposed to the said marriage and is causing disturbance to their marital life. It is alleged that since the life of the petitioner and her husband is at stake at the hands of the petitioner's father, they lodged a complaint dated 20.06.2016 ...
K. Ganesan Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained written instructions...
Suresh Kumar @ Appu Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Puduche ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, in S.C.No.22 of 2013 dated 20.08.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Vinodhini . This name fills the grieved hearts of the masses even today. A young engineering graduate, at the age of 23, the only daughter of poor parents, employed in a Software Company in Chennai, with a lot of 'vision' about her future would have had no reason to anticipate that the Deepavali, on 13.11.2012, the festival of lights symbolising the victory of righteousness, was going to be close to the last day of her vision and life. Yes. She celebrated the festival with her parents at her home town Karaikal, with all joy and jubilance. On 14.11.2012, at 10.00 p.m., when she was on her way to the bus stand to board a bus to Chennai, the gory incident occurred. In the acid attack at the hands of the stony hearted accused, whose one si...
Selvam Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahalir Court, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.61 of 2014, dated 09.01.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.61 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahalir Court, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for offences under Section 498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC. By judgment dated 09.01.2015, the trial court convicted him under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 and 316 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in de...
A. Chandran and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order as made in ROC No.85 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016 in Special Case No.45 of 2011 passed by the Special Court for Trial of P.C. Act Cases, Madurai as devoid of merits in respect of the properties as stated as appealed before this Hon'ble Court vide C.A.No.23 of 2016 forthwith.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. In the Special Case in S.C.No.45 of 2011, the Special Judge convicted the petitioners. Besides sentencing them also directed confiscation of the proceeds of crime. As against that, Crl.A.(MD)No.23 of 2016 has been preferred before this Court. Admittedly, in the C.rlA.(MD)No.23 of 2016, an application to stay further proceedings pursuant to confiscation order has not been filed. Further, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., consequent upon the order passed by the trial Court ordering attachment in pursuance of orders of confiscation. 3. The Criminal Appeal is admitted...
J. Jebin Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 23.08.2013 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to take action against the accused in accordance with law.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 23.08.2013 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that pursuant to the non-cooperation on the side of the petitioner, the complaint 23.08.2013, preferred by the petitioner has been closed. 3. There is an undertaking by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will co-op...
K. Lakshmi and Others Vs. The Chairperson/Commissioner of Land Reforms ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(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 orders to grant property situated at Plot No.8, Block B4 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, the 10 acres of land situated at Sy.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District belongs to Boodan Yagna Board, which has developed and divided the said property into plots. Furthermore, for more than 12 years, she is enjoying the aforesaid property situated at plot No.8, Block B4 by rearing pigs. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respond...
E. Bathiah, Manager, SIPCOT Limited, Chennai Vs. The Chairman and Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner forthwith within a time frame to the post of Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 06.05.2013 and thereafter to the post of Deputy General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 19.02.2016, being the dates on which promotion to the said posts were given to his immediate junior Sri.S.P.Meyyappan in view of the punishment imposed on the petitioner being set aside by this Court in W.P.No.22143 of 2015, dated 11.03.2016, with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary and other attendant benefits and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and necessary.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a mandamus, to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner forthwith to the post of Assistant General Manager, SIPCOT, with effect from 06.05.2013 and thereafter, to the post of Deputy General Manager, SIPCOT, w...
M/s. IJM Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Assistant General Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer in all W.Ps. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the respondent in TIN : 33881663691/2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and to quash the order, dated 15.07.2015 passed therein.) Common Order: 1. Heard Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. With the consent on either side, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Ready-mix concrete, and have its Factory at Senneer Kuppam Village, Avadi Road, Chennai. The petitioner is a registered dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. The short issue, which falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the be...
Marimuthuppandian Vs. Solaipriya and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
1. In this revision, practically, a father is fighting against his daughter. The father is the revision petitioner and the daughter is the second respondent. 2. Wife / first respondent wanted to bid goodbye to her husband / revision petitioner permanently. So, she sought for divorce in H.M.O.P. But, the husband is not for it. He is for living together. So, he filed H.M.O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights. But, their daughter is not a party to the dispute between her parents. Both the wife and daughter have sought for maintenance in M.C.No.12 of 2014. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, taking note of the fact that the first respondent is earning as a Teacher, negatived maintenance for her. However, taking into account the earnings of her father, the learned Magistrate granted Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. Aggrieved, the father has directed this revision. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the first respondent herself...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »