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.
R. Murugesan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing i.e.the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2016 regarding refixing his Grade Pay in the Selection Grade and Special Grade on par with the Helpers serving in the Electrical Wing and to send revised pension proposals within a specified time frame.) 1. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was serving as Special Grade Helper, Water Resource Organisation, Periyar Vagai Basin Sub Division No.1, Madurai, in the Public Works Department. He was allowed to retire peacefully on 30.04.2015 and received all his retirement benefits. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Helpers serving in the Electrical Wing of the Public Works Department are given a Grade pay of Rs.1,900/- in the ordinary scale. But such grade pay has not been given to the Helpers serving in other wings ...
V. Penchilaiya Vs. The State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 06.11.2014, made in S.C.No.46 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, at Poonamallee.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.46 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, at Poonamallee. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 451, 302 and 324 of I.P.C. By judgment, dated 06.11.2014, the trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 451 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The...
Senthil Kumar @ Mudikondan and Others Vs. State by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in S.C.No.181 of 2012 dated 29.06.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.181 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The trial Court framed charges against A.1 to A.3 as detailed below:- Sl.NoAccusedSection of law1A.1341, 302, 506(ii) I.P.C.,2A.2341, 302, 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C.,3A.3341, 302, 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C., All the accused denied the above charges framed against them. By judgment dated 29.06.2015, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused as detailed below:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1 341 I.P.C.,506(ii) I.P.C., 302 I.P.C.,Simple imprisonment for one monthRigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-...
T. Dhanalakshmi Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from obstructing the ingress and egress to the petitioner's property situate at Door No.146, Palayamkottai Road, Thoothukudi by raising the height of culvert with 2 feet height from the Road Level in front of the petitioner's complex namely 'Manickam Towers'.) Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent/District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 2. According to the petitioner, she and her brother M.Ramesh are the absolute owners of the property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 17 cents of land comprised in Town Sy.No.3485 part, 3486/2 part, 3488/1, 3489/2, 3489/3 and 3490 part situated at Ward No.4, Block No.22 at Palayamkottai Road, Thoothukudi and further they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that in the aforesaid property, they intended to cons...
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Tirunelveli Vs. Ram ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1361 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. Aggrieved over the award dated 19.11.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, in M.C.O.P.No.1361 of 2012, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 2. According to the claimants, on 08.03.2012 at about 19.35 hours, the deceased Pool Pandian was proceeding in his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN72AA-4228 in the south Bye Pass road from north to south direction and at that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN72N 1203 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Galaxy Hospital, Tirunelveli for treatment, but later, died on 19...
GMR Holdings Private Limited and Others Vs. ---
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement.) Common Order 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement with effect from 30.03.2015. The scheme of amalgamation and arrangement (in short the Scheme) is appended as Annexure D to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.128 of 2016 is the 1st transferor company; the petitioner in C.P.No.129 of 2016 is the 2nd transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.130 of 2016 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. Certificates of the Chartered Accountant has been file...
Govindaraj and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 27.02.2015 made in S.C.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.130 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC and Accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 27.02.2015, the Trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed below:- AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1 to A.3120-BSimple imprisonment for six monthsA.1302 I.P.C.To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for six monthsA.2 and A.3342 I.P.C.Simple Imprisonment for six months eachA.2 and A.3302 r/w 34 I.P.C.To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15...
S. Veeraputheran Vs. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to instruct the Second Respondent to disburse the maturity proceeds of the deposits bearing Nos.(i)KD/01/006674, Rs.1,75,000/-, dated 05.03.2008, (ii) FD/01/002184, Rs.10,000/-, dated 06.03.2008, (iii) KD/01/006473, Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 19.12.2007, (iv) KD/01/004201, Rs.16,386/-, dated 11.12.2005, total Rs.3,01,386/- with applicable rate of interest at periodical intervals as per the guidelines of the Bank in tune with RBI directives to the Petitioner along with cost.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is working in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation as conductor ever since 25.02.2009. Prior to that, he was a partner in M/s.Shri Aby Construction, 16A, Vinayagar Nagar, Madurai 20. As a matter of fact, the said M/s.Shri Aby Construction was sanctioned with a bank guarantee limit of Rs.2,00,000/- inter alia on condition that 1...
The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumb ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2367 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court No.I, Trichirappalli.) 1. Aggrieved over the award dated 29.08.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court No.I, Trichirappalli, in M.C.O.P.No.2367 of 2005, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.08.2005 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Govinthan was travelling his TVS 50 near Tollgate at Trichy-Chennai Bye-pass road and at that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN49N 1160, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle. In the impact, the deceased sustained multiple fracture and injuries and died on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased laid a claim petition cla...
Anandakumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by judgment dated 05.01.2015 made in S.C.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.67 of 2014 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 05.01.2015, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous 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:- a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Raja. He used to sell groundnut pockets in the Erode Bus stand by entering into the bus to the passengers. P.W.2 - Umesh was also doing the same busin...