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.
CBI represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, SPE: CBI: ACB, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 read with 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.02.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2013 in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the CBI against the order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 20 13 in C.C.No.3 of 2013, whereby, the petition filed by CBI seeking permission to include A4, A5 and A6, whose names have been mentioned in the final report in the second column as 'not sent up for trial', as additional witness, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this revision petition, are as follows: (a) The revision petitioner herein/CBI, on their source information, registered a case in R.C.No.33A/2011 on 29.08.2011 on the allegation that Shri.Andasu Ravindar, IRS (A1), while functioning as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,...
John Anthonisamy @ John Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.189 of 2008 dated 22.07.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellant is the Accused No.1 in S.C.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Court for Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore. There were four other accused arrayed as A2 to A5. The trial court framed charges as against all the five accused as detailed below:- Charge NumberCharges framed againstPenal Provision under which charges framed1A1 to A5Section 120-B of IPC2A1 to A5Section 147 of IPC3A1 to A5Section 342 of IPC4A1 to A5Section 364 of IPC5A3 to A5Section 302 of IPC6A1 and A2Section 302 r/w Sections 120-B and 149 of IPC7A1 to A5Section 201 of IPC8A1 to A5Section 396 of IPCThe trial court, by judgement dated 22.07.2014, acquitted A2 to A5 from all the charges, however, convicted A1 alone ...
The Principal, Sakthi Vinayagar Hindu Vidhyalaya, Chidambra Nagar, Tho ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 28.06.2016 passed in W.P(MD)No.10516 of 2016.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the fourth respondent in the writ petition - Principal of a Vidhyalaya at Thoothukudi. The first respondent herein - parent of a student of the school of which the appellant is the Principal, sought for a direction to permit his son to continue his education in XI Standard in the said school. 2. Heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. The essential grievance of the writ petitioner is that his son has been unjustly denied admission in XI Standard, after the writ petitioner's son has passed out X Standard from that very school duly obtaining a decent grade in the X S...
G. Ramadoss Vs. State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, in Copy Application No.64 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 2015 and set aside the order, dated 29.06.2016.) 1. The de facto complainant in C.C.No.5 of 2015, aggrieved by the non-compliance of C.A.No.64 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 5 of 2015, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai, has directed this revision. 2. In this case, the prosecution obtained Handwriting Expert's Report based on certain questioned documents and certain admitted documents. The Report of the Handwriting Expert has been furnished to the accused. Now, the request is not coming from the accused, it is coming from the victim / de facto complainant. Admittedly, the complainant got the copy of the Handwriting Expert's Report. He filed C.A.No.64 of 2016 for furnishing ...
Helen Vs. A. Chellapandi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Karaikal(previously H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Court, Karaikal) and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Karaikal(previously H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Court, Karaikal) and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the case may be transferred to the file of the Judge,Family Court,Madurai. 3. Recording the above submissions, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the ...
A. Deisy Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners seniority at the 1st place in the Promotion panel as on 01.01.2016 for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) in Madurai west Panchayat Union and to promote and post the petitioner as BT Assistant in English in the existing vacancy of BT Assistant (English) at Madurai west panchayat union Middle school at athalai or any other vacancy in other middle school functioning under Madurai West Panchayat Union Jurisdiction.) 1. Mr.A.Deisy, is a Secondary Grade Teacher, presently serving in the Panchayat Union Elementary School at Chakkiliankulam. The next avenue of promotion to her is B.T.Assistant. Since 2015, she has been shown as first in the promotion panel prepared by the respondents. While so, the counseling is scheduled on 06.08.2016. According to counseling schedule, B.T.promotion should be made first and the...
Kathirvel Vs. Sellammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in C.M.A.No.22 of 2005, dated 13.2.2006, on the file of the District Court, Karur confirming the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.827 of 2004 in O.S.No.248 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.) 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Karur in C.M.A.No.22 of 2005, dated 13.2.2006 confirming the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.827 of 2004 in O.S.No.248 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur. 2. The Petitioner along with the second respondent filed a suit against the first respondent and two other persons for partition claiming 1/5th share in the suit property and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 6.6.2002. The ex-parte decree was set aside by the learned District Munsif, Karur in I.A.No.827 of 2004. The s...
M. Annamalai Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Exe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District, in Na.Ka.a4/168/2016.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District, in Na.Ka.a4/168/2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 'A' parties. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District, without applying his mind, erroneously passed an order on 23.05.2016, which is liable to be quashed. It is further su...
S.V. Palanisamy Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to appoint a Fit Person for the temple, namely Arulmighu Ayyappan Thirukoil, Sundakamuthur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.) By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, claims to be one of the permanent trustees of the Arulmighu Iyyappan Thirukoil, Sundakamuthur, aggrieved by the misdeeds of the respondents 4 to 8, had submitted a representation/petition to the third respondent for taking over the management of the temple and appoint a Fit Person and the Inspector, HRandCE Department, Coimbatore has sent a communication to the Village Administrative Officer, Sundakamuthur in O.Mu.No.34/2016 dated 04.04.2016 calling for particulars as to the measurement of the temple immovable property as well as Chitta and Adangal. The further grievance expressed by the petitioner is that pending disposal of the rep...
V. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India Rep. by its Secretary New D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioners as Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust with effect from the date of their initial appointment and grant all the benefits that are paid to the Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust with retrospective effect with all monetary and other attendant benefits.) 1. In all these 17 writ petitions, the question arise for consideration is common and identical. The learned counsel appearing for both sides have advanced common arguments. Therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these batch of cases, the facts which gave rise to filing WP No. 18326 of 2016 is dealt with in common, as a test case. 3. According to the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016, he is a...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »