Chennai Court July 2016 Judgments
R. Mahendran and Others Vs. The State by Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.4975 of 2010 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the criminal case in S.C.No.312 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram to quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner / A5 is concerned. Crl.O.P.No.5924 of 2010 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the criminal case in S.C.No.312 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram to quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioners / A2 to A4 are concerned.) Common Order 1. These two Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the prosecution instituted against the petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 to A5 in S.C.No.312 of 2008 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. It is averred in the petitions that the deceased married Latha on 06.09.1998 and out of the wedlock a fem...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Diwan Mohideen Vs. Union of India Represented by Divisional Railw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 30.10.2009 made in O.A.No.231 of 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents herein to grant pension to the petitioner taking into account by including the period of Casual Labour Service rendered by the petitioner herein from 01.10.1965 to 17.04.1976 with arrears and other consequential benefits.) 1. This writ petition is directed to quash the order, dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) in O.A.No.231 of 2007. 2. The facts which lead to file this writ petition in nutshell are as follows : (i) The writ petitioner joined the Railway service as Casual Labour on 01.10.1965 and was in continuous service as a daily rated Casual Labour till 09.05.1974. As he participa...
Tag this Judgment!K. Samuel and Another Vs. B. Ponna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the fair and decreetal order of the Learned I Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, dated 29.03.2011 in C.M.P.No.295 of 2011 in A.S.No.43 of 2011.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that challenging the order dated 29.03.2011 passed in C.M.P.No.295 of 2011 in A.S.No.43 of 2011, by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, against the petitioner has already filed an second appeal in S.A.No.447 of 2014. 2. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous....
Tag this Judgment!Boiler Plant Employees Union, Trichy Vs. The Managing Director, BHEL E ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the fixed deposit amount in F.D.No.501070746 based upon the order in I.A.No.902 of 2015 and based upon the joint memo undertaking filed in O.S.No.1149 of 2015 to the Petitioner, if necessary go get an indemnity bond from the Petitioner.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 28.7.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaresan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to measure and demarcate the property in accordance with law comprised in S.Nos.812/2, 813/3A, 813/3C, Dindigul District by considering the representation of Petitioner, dated 8.7.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioners, their father executed a registered Settlement Deed, dated 5.5.2009 bequeathing the property in the first Petitioner's name as well as his brother/Second Petitioner's name. Ever since from the date of execution of Settlement Deed, the revenue records like Patta, Chitta and Adangal stands in their name and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. 5. The grievance of the Petitioners is that after the execution of Settlement Deed by ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ravindra Kumar Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012 Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2015 dated 07.08.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry), a primary class teacher, stands convicted for having allegedly committed sexual offences against three young female children aged 10 years, 10 years and 9 years respectively, in the very school where they were studying. By judgment dated 07.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Sections 4 (3 counts), 6 (3 counts) and 10 (3 counts) of the POCSO Act and under Section 377 I.P.C. (3 counts) and sentenced him as detailed below: ad>Penal provision(s) under which convictedSentenceSection 4 of POCSO Act(3 counts)Imprisonment for life for...
Tag this Judgment!M. Selvam Vs. The Coimbatore City, Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the tender called for collection of fees for the period of 2015 to 2018 as notified through the News Daily dated 10.03.2015 and the subsequent confirmation of tender to an undisclosed person for a sum of Rs.51,03,000/- and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondent to re-tender the collection of fees for the period of 2015 to 2018.) 1. The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the tender called for collection of fees for the period 2015 to 2018 as notified through the News Daily dated 10.03.2015 and the subsequent confirmation of tender to an undisclosed person for a sum of Rs.51,03,000/- and to quash the same and subsequently, direct the respondent to re-tender the collection of fees for the period of 2015 to 2018. 2. It is the case...
Tag this Judgment!D. Thiagarajan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his letter dated 18.07.2016 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner No. TR. 1079486057116 so as to enable the petitioner to attend the Natural Agricultural farm to Quba and Europe Countries scheduled to be held from 13.09.2016 to 27.09.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, he is a B.Tech (Program) Graduate and he is doing intensive traditional cultivation of his own land and also that he is an active member in the Tanjore Fish Farming Development Agency, Tiruvarur from the year 2009 onwards. Further, he had attended training in the Fish Training Centre in...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mariappan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 14.12.2012 in S.C.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14.12.2012 in S.C.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, by which, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as follows: ad>Sl.No.Offence under SectionConviction and sentenceFine1448 IPCRigorous imprisonment for six monthsRs.500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for seven days2376(1) IPCRigorous imprisonment for eight yearsRs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month3506 (Part 2) IPCRigorous imprisonment for one yearRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.W.1 complainant, who was aged abou...
Tag this Judgment!S. Siva Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Office of the Direct ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of reversion passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5966/Aa4/2011 dated 22.12.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to restore the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant (English) in any of the vacancies in Narikudi Union at Panchayat Union Middle Schools at Rengaiyanpatti and Sullangudi Virudhunagar District without any delay.) T. Raja, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »