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.
Nagappan Vs. State, by The Inspector of Police, Vellore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Thirupathur, in S.C.No.77 of 2009.) V. Bharathidasan, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.77 of 2009, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court) Thirupathur, Vellore District. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 294-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alone, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 294-B. Challenging that conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one ...
Senthamaraikannan and Others Vs. Jaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.06.2001 made in A.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.12.2000 made in O.S.No.286 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.06.2001 made in A.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.12.2000 made in O.S.No.286 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.286 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants herein. The suit was initially filed for permanent injunction and then alternative relief of directing the defendants to surrender the possession of "B" schedule property was sought f...
Selvaraj Vs. State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Salem Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 19.11.2013 in S.C.No.221 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.221 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Salem. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 19.11.2013, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (no default condition was imposed by the trial Court). 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 Mr.Kupusamy. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the wife, sister and mother respectively of the deceased. The ancestral property belonging to the father of the deceased and his uncles were partitioned long before. The accused is one of the sons of the paternal uncl...
A. Arulappan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to survey the Petitioner's lands and fix boundary stones in respect of Survey No.157, situated at Morpatti Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District within a time frame to be fixed by this 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 purchased the landed property in S.NO.157, situated at Morpatti Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District, measuring an extent of 2,200 sq.ft by means of registered sale deed, dated 25.11.1999, vide document No.1988/1999 from its lawful owners. From the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question with absolute rights. Indeed, the Petitioner gave the land measuring an extent of 144 s.meters for the extension of N.H.45 to the Government and the remaining portion of the land i...
R. Dhayalan Vs. The Inspector of Police (Crime)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent to secure the accused persons in Crime No.253 of 2014 pending on the file of the respondent police within time bound stipulated by this Court.) 1. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. So cautioned the Supreme Court in the case of Joginer Singh vs. State of U.P., 1994 (4) SCC 260 This is a petition, seeking a direction to the respondent to secure the accused person in Crime No.253 of 2014, which has been registered in respect of offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The sum and substance of the allegation is that...
Dharmaraj Vs. State Rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.A.No.11 of 2013 by Judgment dated 08.12.2014, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned District Munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in C.C.No.14 of 2009, dated 18.09.2012 set aside the Judgments of the Courts below.) 1. This revision by the accused is to challenge the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded to him in C.C.No.14 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, as confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in CA.No.11 of 2013. 2. Before the trial Court the revision petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 379 IPC. To establish the charge prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P1 to P7 and exhibited M.O.1. 3. Relying on the said evidence, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 379 of...
Palaniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.06.2007 made in A.S.No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2006 made in O.S.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.06.2007 made in A.S.No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2006 made in O.S.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur is the appellant herein. The suit was initially filed in the District Munsif Court, Mettur as O.S.No.753 of 1987. The suit is for permanent injunction. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs have...
N. Venkatesan Vs. The State rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Thir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents 1 to 9 to produce the person and body of the petitioner's minor daughter Monisha, aged about 16 years, before this Court and hand over her custody to the petitioner herein.) S. Nagamuthu, J. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed alleging that the daughter of the petitioner by name Monisha, aged about 16 years was kidnapped by the respondents 3 to 9 and she was not secured by the police. 2. The Habeas Corpus Petition initially came before this Court on 22.12.2015. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 24.02.2016, this Court passed the following Order : ''This Habeas Corpus Petition has been pending from the month of December, 2015. The petitioner is the father of the detenue. The detenue, viz., Monisha, aged about 16 years, is a school going girl. According to the petitioner, the detenue was allegedly kidnapped on 13.12.2015. Though, sever...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. 2. It appears that the copy of the original order passed by the second respondent was filed before the Office of the first respondent together with revision petition. As such, the petitioner has projected the instant writ petition with the aid of xerox copy of the order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010. 3. Viewed in that perspective, the production of original impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.04.2010, is dispensed with for the present. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed....
Suresh Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.04.2013.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the matter was enquired into and there is a compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the proposed accused. The copy of the statement recorded in the Police Station is also produced. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the terms of compromise was not carried into effect and that the proposed accused is trying to disobey the terms of compromise. 5. This Court is of the view that if the terms of compromise is not respect...
- ‹ Prev
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- Next ›
- Last »