Chennai Court July 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.
Muthu Vs. The State by Inspector of Police, Erode District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 04.11.2015 made in S.C.No.144 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.144 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 04.11.2015, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 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.Gopikarar @ Natarajan. He was aged about 60 years at the time of his death. The deceased was a resident of Marudham Kattu Thottam, Kodumudi in Erode District. The...
P.K. Srikumar Vs. Harshitha Gopinathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayers in O.S.A.No.249 of 2015 : Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the fair and decretal order, dated 04.08.2015 made in O.P.No.285 of 2012. O.S.A.No.250 of 2015 : Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.08.2015 made in C.S.No.129 of 2013.) Common Judgment P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These two Original Side Appeals are directed against the common Judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 04.08.2015, one dismissing the Original Petition in O.P.No.285 of 2015 filed by the appellant / petitioner, seeking permanent custody of the minor child and second dismissing the suit in C.S.No.129 of 2013 filed by the appellant / plaintiff for the relief of declaration that the order / Judgment passed by the Superior Court of California, County of Orange in Case No.11D009457 on 01.05.2012 is conclusive and b...
M/s. Shadirom @ Sons Vs. Shanmugam Traders Pvt Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.81 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, and set aside the common order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 24.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.81 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 and consequently order the return of commodities to the petitioner, which were seized in Crime No.34 of 2015 by the 9th respondent.) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.80 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.593 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, and set aside the common order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 24.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.80 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.593 of 2016 and consequently order the return of commodities to the petitioner, which were seized in Crime No.36 of 2015 by the 9th respondent. 1. Though Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12...
M. Kannan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.Bi4/15508/2013 (e.f.gp4/15508/2013) dated Nil.05.2014 and quash the same as illegal and irrelevant and consequentially directing the respondent to measure the exact extent of the property as per the sale deeds in No.2048, dated 10.08.1945 and No.2926, dated 28.07.1943 and demarcate the boundaries and issue the patta in the name of the legal heirs including the petitioner, as requested by the petitioner in his representation dated 20.12.2012.) 1. This Writ Petition has been challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated Nil.05.2014 issued vide Na.Ka.Bi4/15508/2013 (e.f.gp4/15508/2013) and consequently direct the respondent to measure the exact extent of the property as per the sale deeds in No.2048, dated 10.08.1945 and No.2926, dated 28.07.1943 and demarcate the bo...
S. Gurusamy Nadar Vs. The Sub-Collector, Tuticorin District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 14.10.2015 on merits and in accordance with law.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the Third Respondent is dispensed with, in the interest of justice. 3. According to the Petitioner, his father Shanmuga Nadar expired on 2.3.1976 and thereupon, the properties in question devolved on him and his brother Balagurusamy etc., and they enjoyed the properties jointly till the same was partitioned by means of registered Partition Deed, dated 22.09.2979. Since then, they have been enjoying their respective shares in the property without any hindrance by anybody-else. The Petitioner had also obtained separate patta in respect of his share in the properties in Patta No.13...
T. Jerin Vs. The Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(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 accept the payment of the Petitioner for a tune of Rs.1,19,201/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Twon Hundred and One Only) towards the Educational Loan with loan amount Number: 6705969255 availed by the Petitioner and waive the interest portion of the said loan as per the guidelines for subsidy scheme for Educational loan availed upto 31.03.2016 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013, on the representation of the Petitioner dated 07.04.2015.) 1. According to the Petitioner, he availed an educational loan from the Second Respondent / Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Irenipuram Branch,Kanyakumari District, bearing Loan No.67015969255, to the tune of Rs.1,19,000/-, in the year 2006. By availing the loan, he had undergone his under Graduation in Mechanical Engineering, from Vins Christian College of Engineering, Nagercoil. Despite m...
U. Chandrapaul Vs. Annamarial
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.266 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This revision arises out of the order passed by I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.266 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015. 2. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The respondent, as plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of possession. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.565 of 2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C, for amendment of the schedule of the property. The learned Judge having found that the new prayer would not change the character or nature of the suit, allowed the application. 4. Considering the above facts, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned in this ...
Moorthi Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 1. Alleging that, case registered against the petitioner is out of baseless apprehension that the petitioner would fly to Singapore without marrying the victim girl, and that the case is totally false and therefore, the case registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, this petition has been filed. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.9 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 417 and 376 IPC on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioner/accused. Gist of the complaint: 3. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner and the victim girl had been in love with each other for five years, that the petitioner had been working in Singapore for sometime, that on the promise of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with the victim an...
T. Sekar Vs. District Collector, Thiruvarur and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd respondent from going ahead with the pipeline project from Narimanam to Trichy.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ 1. The petitioner, claiming to be the President of a farmer association, seeks to assail the laying of the gas pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). The project is stated to be of a pipeline to be laid at 7 feet depth with 40 feet wide and length of about 200 km from Narimanam, Nagapattinam District to Trichy District passing through the delta districts, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur and Thiruvarur. It is the case of the petitioner that farmers are apprehensive that the project may affect their livelihood and their agricultural produce. The Indian Oil Corporation is alleged not to have conducted any public hearing to remove the apprehensions over the project. 2. The petitioner claims that in view of the constitutional protection under Article 300A, the act...
P. Samiappan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents by considering his representation dated 07.04.2016 to release his "Terminal Benefits" as the petitioner got superannuated on 30.06.2015, with interest (1) Gratuity (2) Earn Leave surrender amount (3) D.A. Arrears, (4) One month pending pension amount (July 2015) and other pay settlement benefit amount within a stipulated time fixed by this Court and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents by considering his representation dated 07.04.2016 to release his "Terminal Benefits" as the petitioner got superannuated on 30.06.2015, with interest (1) Gratuity (2) Earn Leave surrender amount (3) D.A. Arrears, (4) One month pending pension amount (July 2015) and other pay settlement benefit amount within a stipulated time fixed by this Court and pass further orders...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »