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.
R. Rengarajan Vs. A. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the Order dated 16.07.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.5285 of 2014 in C.C.No.139 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur, Virudunagar District and remand the matter back to the said Court.) 1. This revision arises out of dismissal of a discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.5285 of 2014 in C.C.No.139 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 2. The complaint in C.C.No.139 of 2011 is presented under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Taken cognizance. Issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., to the accused. Copies under Section 208 Cr.P.C., has been supplied. 3. At this juncture, the accused filed Cr.M.P.No.5285 of 2014, under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., to discharge him from the case. 4. The learned Magistrate, considering the averments in the discharge petition and ...
Venkatachalam Vs. The District Superintendent of Police 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 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 and 380 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 24.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 and 380 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 24.03.2016. 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 allegation in the complaint is that the proposed accused persons conspired together, impersonated and created fake documents, as if they are the owners of the property in S.No.447, which belongs to the petitioner. Since no action was taken on the complaint lod...
Prabhu and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tiruppathur Taluk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tiruppattur, in S.C.No.17 of 2012, dated 04.01.2013.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2013 is the first accused and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2013 are the accused 2 to 6 in S.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore at Tiruppattur. 2. By judgment, dated 04.01.2013, the trial court convicted the first accused for offences under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with 149 IPC and accused 2 to 6 under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The trial court sentenced the first accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 ...
Joseph Tharmasekaran Vs. The Management of Papanasam Labour Welfare As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to order dated 06.08.2003 dismissing the petitioner from service of the 1st respondent school and to quash the same and to further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full wages and all other benefits from 06.08.2003.) 1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the first respondent School, which is an aided school, governed by The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools [Regulation] Act, 1973. In contemplation of certain charges relating to financial irregularities, the Management of the School placed him under suspension by order dated 20.07.2001 w.e.f. 21.07.2001. Challenging the said order of suspension, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13541 of 2001 before this court. Initially, this court had passed an order of interim stay of the order of suspension. In pursu...
Dr. G. Vinodh Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings Ref.No.88967/E1/5/2014 dated 4.3.2015 and quash the same in so far as panel to the post of Associate Professor in Dental Surgery for the year 2014-2015 is concerned for non inclusion of petitioner's name in the said list and consequently direct the first and second respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 2014-2015 so as to consider his case for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Dental Surgery.) 1. Dr.G.Vinodh, who is currently serving as Senior Assistant Professor, aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the panel for the next avenue of promotion, namely, Associate Professor, has come to this Court challenging the circular issued by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, the second respondent herein in Ref.No.88967/E1/5/2014 dated 4.3....
Bhaskaran Vs. R.M. Kaviarasu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the order and decreetal Order in Transfer O.P.No.22 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, dated 12.07.2012.) 1. Heard the submission of Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and Mr.Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. O.S.No.121 of 2010 was filed by the 1st respondnet in the present Revision Petition on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi with a prayer for permanent injunction with regard to the suit property against the Revision Petitioner. In O.S.No.76 of 2012 was filed by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondents on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, seeking a relief of permanent injunction against the Respondents with regard to the same suit property. 3. Since, the Revision Petitioner wanted both the suits to be tried together, an Application was p...
Saratha Vs. The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 29.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.9231 of 2012.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the W.A(MD)No.742 of 2012 which is also against the same common order has been dismissed on 10th April 2014, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal. 2. Accordingly, permission is accorded and the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 92 days caused in preferring the appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate/Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in S.T.C.No.5 of 2006, a cheque bouncing case. 2. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court on 05.04.2016 in Crl.A (MD) No.99 of 2015 (S.Ganapathy and N.Senthilvel and batch cases) in paragraph 31 held as under: 31. Since, subsequent to the Full Bench reference, the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh interpreted these provisions, we are duty bound to follow the same to the extent it binds us. With that in mind and in the light of the above legal precedents and the discussion, we answer the questions posed by the Referral Judge as follows:- (1) A victim of the crime, who has prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, has a statutory right of appeal within the limits prescribed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. (2) A complainant (in a private complaint), who is not a victim, has a ...
Shanmugapandian Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur to receive the petition dated 01.04.2016 filed under Section 70(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and recall the NBW without insisting the petitioner to surrender in connection with a case in S.T.C.No.183 of 2015.) 1. It is a petition seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur to receive the petition dated 01.04.2016 filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and recall the NBW without insisting upon the personal presence of the accused in S.T.C.No.183 of 2015. 2. Case is pending against the accused/petitioner in STC No.183 of 2015. When the case was posted for hearing on 28.03.2016, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and that made the Trial Court to issue NBW against the petitioner. This warrant is sought to be recalled without the petitioner being present before the Trial Court. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing fo...
M/s. Integrated Enterprises (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the scheme of arrangement (demerger).) Common Order: 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement (demerger) (in short Scheme) between the Demerged companies with the Resulting company with effect from 1st April 2016. The original Scheme is appended as Annexure '14' to the petitions and the amended Scheme is enclosed along with the affidavit dated 11.4.2016. 2. M/s.Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.543 of 2015 is the first Demerged company, M/s.Integrated Registry Services Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.544 of 2015 is the second Demerged Company; M/s.IEP Insurance Broking Services Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.545 of 2015 is the third Demerged Company and M/s.Integrated Registry Management Services Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.546 of 2015 is the Resu...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »