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.
Nallusamy Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Namakkal District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal Division, Namakkal, in S.C.No.59 of 2011 dated 20.03.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal Division. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. The trial court, by judgment dated 20.03.2012, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the sole accused has come up with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Sellammal. She was a resident of Ettikampalayam Village. She owned an agricultural land in the said village by the side ...
Suriya Prasanth Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his wife for their personal life and limb.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his wife for their personal life and limb. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner has married one Arthi and the marriage has been duly registered on 07.04.2016; that the 3rd and 4th respondents, who are the father and brother of the petitioner's wife are threatening the couple with the dire consequences and the apprehension is that the petitioner and his wife may even be killed; that a complaint was laid on 12.04.2016, which was not enquired into and that made the petitioner to approach th...
M/s. Sivalogam Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Customs Excise and Service Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer in CMA No.754 of 2016: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act read with Sec.83 of Finance Act, 1994, against the Final Order No.41234/2015 dated 25.09.2015 through COD Application Nos.E/COD/40253/2015 in Appeal No.E.40662/2015-DB, passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal.) Common Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, made in Appeal Nos.E.40662/2015-DB and E.40663/2015-DB dated 25.09.2015, declining to condone the delay of 405 days in filing the appeals, against the final orders in Nos.41234/2015 and 41235/2015, respectively, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals viz., CMA Nos.754 and 755 of 2016, are filed. 2. Assailing the correctness of the impugned orders, Mr.L.J.Vengatesh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before CESTAT, Chennai Bench, imposition of duty and personal penalty of Rs.10,37,673/-, were challenged. 3. According ...
Malarkodi Vs. Muthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the fair and decreetal Order dated 14.09.2007 in I.A.No.26 of 2006 in M.O.P.No.53 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur.) 1. Heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.T.Sundaravadanan, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Respondent/Husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2003, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, for divorce against the petitioner/wife under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. On the ground of the petition was set Ex-parte on 30.11.2004 and a decree was passed against the Petitioner/wife on the ground that the Petitioner/wife has not appeared and not filed the counter statement. 3. Therefore, the Petitioner/wife has filed in I.A.No.2 of 2005 under Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2003, dated 30.11.2004. In the said petition ...
V. Manavalan Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Letter No.29316/General-II/2015-1, Public (General-II) Department, dated 11.09.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Reception Officer in commensurate with the petitioner's seniority and educational qualification and promote or upgrade the petitioner as such in the State Guest House, Chepauk, Chennai - 5 or at the Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi and grant the petitioner all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his junior.) 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned proceedings dated 11.09.2015 passed by the respondent, in and by which, the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Reception Officer was rejected on tw...
Kannan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division, in S.C.No.326 of 2011, dated 22.03.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.326 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division. He was charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 506 (ii) IPC (2 counts). By judgment, dated 22.03.2012, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life (No fine was imposed). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Nagaraj. The deceased used to do some sundry work in Kamarajapuram area, Coimbatore city. He used to sleep in front of a shop, known as M/s.Vikas Agencies Furniture Mart. The accused is a leper and during the relevant time...
N.C. Athinarayana Perumal Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose the amendment petition in O.A.No.2 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent herein within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he filed a petition in O.A.No.2 of 2016 before the first respondent/Joint Commissioner, H.R and C.E Department, Tirunelveli, wherein, he had made a request to take up the petition in O.A.No.2 of 2016 for hearing as quickly as possible and to modify the age old scheme framed in the year 1999 in O.A.No.4 of 1999, after enquiring the petitioners in O.A.No.2 of 2016. 4. It comes to be known that in O.A.No.2 of 2016, there are totally 6 petitioners (including the writ petitioner). Surprisingly, in the representation dated 18.05.2016 of the writ petitioner, addressed to the fi...
K. Rajendran Vs. State through The Superintendent of Police, Virudhuna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner without following the due process of law.) 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner and to follow due process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.25/2015 registered by the District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner has regularly and continuously appearing before the respondent pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 04.12.2015 in an application seeking anticipatory bail, there is no justification for the respondent to call the petitioner in the name of enquiry even thereafter. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appearing before the responden...
M. Subbulakshmi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Superin ...
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 second respondent to give police protection for the life of the petitioner and her family members and also to the property.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the second respondent to give police protection for the life of the petitioner and her family members and also to the property. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after the death of her father on 12.04.2001, she became the owner of the property along with four of her sister; that the four proposed accused persons made an attempt to trespass into the property and threatened the petitioner and her sisters to dispossess themselves from the property; that some persons belonging to lower state of society have been made use of ...
N.K. Jha Vs. Government of India, represented by The Joint Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayers: WP No. 27160 of 2015:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the order dated 17.08.2015 in reference No.Pu/Regr/2015-16/58 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor (in-charge) to Pondicherry University till the regular Vice-chancellor is appointed in accordance with Pondicherry University Act, 1985 and the Statutes of University. WP No. 129 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order dated 21.08.2015 in his proceedings No.39-2/2015-Desk(U) and quash the same.) Common Order 1. The issue arise for consideration of this Court in these two writ petitions is one and the same. The learned counsel on either side have advanced common argume...
- ‹ Prev
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- Next ›
- Last »