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.
A. Chandrasekaran Vs. Chithiraikani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for having committed the Contempt of Court by disobeying the order made by this Court in W.P(MD)No.19887 of 2014, dated 14.7.2015.) 1. Today, the Contemnor/Respondent is present. On behalf of the Contemnor/Respondent, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the encroachment was evicted with the assistance of Revenue and Police on 30.05.2016 and 31.05.2015 and the 'road restored'. As such, it is the plea of the Contemnor/Respondent that the order passed in W.P(MD)No.19887 of 2014, dated 14.07.2015 has since been complied with. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact, since nothing survives for adjudication in the Contempt Petition, the present Contempt Petition is closed. The presence of the Contemnor/Respondent/Chithiraikani, is dispensed with....
S.R. Sambasivam Vs. The Tahsildar, Pattukottai Taluk
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.10.2014 for issuance of joint patta in Survey Nos.259/1 and 258/1 situate at Athikottai, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case.) 1. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the family head and he is aged about 63 years. His grievance is that the omitted portion of the property is to be incorporated in the patta issued to him and in his brother's name. Otherwise, he would be put to great hardship. Furthermore, it is his stand that as per partition deed, they are enjoying the property separately and in fact, his father's brother's son namely Swaminathan had given a 'No Objectio...
T. Pappa Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(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 remove the attachment made on 28.04.2003 in pursuance of the G.O.No.356 issued by the first and second respondents under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 in respect of the petitioner's land in S.F.No.15C, 16/2 to an extent of 3108 Sq.ft registered as Document No.354 of 2000 before the fourth respondent located at Mookanakurichi Village, Karur District and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the attachment made on 28.04.2003 in pursuance of the G.O.No.356 issued by the first and second respondents under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 in respect of the petitioner's land in S.F.No.15C, 16/2 to a...
Rahul Dhoka Vs. State by, Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the dismissal order passed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2015 in S.C.No.174 of 2015, dated 12.04.2016 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and seeks to set aside the same.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2015 in S.C.No.174 of 2015, dated 12.04.2016 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 308 of I.P.C. and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the case was taken on file by the learned XIX Additional...
Murugesan Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 13.04.2015 made in S.C.No.74 of 2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.74 of 2012 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. There were two other accused, by name, Vaithialingam and Thiyagarajan, who were arrayed as Accused 2 and 3. During the pendency of the trial, the third accused died and thus, charges against him stood abated. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges. The first charge was against the first accused under Section 302 IPC; the second charge was against the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and the third charge was under Section 324 IPC against the second accused. By judgment dated 13.04.2015, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo impri...
V. Ramaiah Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to implead the petitioner as a party in the pending proceedings before him in Na.Ka.No.11138/2012/D3 dated 28.4.2015 and pass orders on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner.) 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 First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai. 4. However, in respect of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, to avoid an avoidable delay, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with by this Court. 5. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner had filed a petition in Na.Ka.No.11138/2012/D3 before the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai, seeking to implead himself in the pending appeal. 6. At this stage, Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Learned Government Advocate informs this Court that the petitioner's i...
Kannan Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.186 of 2010 dated 18.09.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.186 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. He stood charged for offence under Section 498A and 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 18.09.2012, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to under go simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Kalavathi. The accused married her 13 years before her death. Out of the said wedlock, a male and female child were born and all of them were living together. The accus...
Mohanarangan Vs. Irshad Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: C.R.P.(NPD) No.2108/2009 filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2009 made in I.A.No.355 of 2009 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tamabaram.) Common Order 1. Challenging the fair and final orders passed in I.A.No.354 of 2009 in O.S.No.180 of 2007 and I.A.No.355 of 2009 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tamabaram, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are common, by consent of both the parties, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The plaintiff filed the suits in O.S.Nos. 180 and 181 of 2007 for permanent injunction, 4. The defendant failed to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he was set exparte, pursuant to the paper publication ordered by the Trial Court and an exparte decree was passed on 13.09.2007. 5. Thereafter, the defendan...
Theni District Cable (TDC TV) Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Ar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.03.2014 and to amend the Provisional Allotment Orders in PLC No.55133, 55192, 55243 and 55268 dated 28.01.2014, 29.01.2014, 29.01.2014 and 30.01.2014 in the name of Theni District Cable (TDC TV) a partnership firm, represented by its Partners S.Tamilan, V. Lakshmanan and S.Loganathan at D.No.60, NRT, Main Road, theni-625 531 and grant such other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
K. Selvarani Vs. The District Collector, Trichirappalli District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 23.5.2016 and to grant patta in her name to the land situated in S.Nos.295/6, 295/9 and 294/5 situated at Periyakurukkai Village, Lalkudi Taluk, Trichirappalli District within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1 .There is no representation for the Petitioner. 2. According to the Petitioner, he originally purchased the property and submitted an application before the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Lalkudi Taluk,Trichirappalli District in the year 2014 itself. However, till date, no orders have been passed by the Second Respondent. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that due to the inaction on the part of the Second Respondent, he had suffered much and again, he approached the Second Respondent in person at his Office and submitted a representation and prayed for issuance of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »