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.
K. Sudhakar Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Teynampet and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's Appeal Petition dated 17.8.2015 in accordance with law and pass orders in providing informations under Right to Information Act within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, his appeal dated 17.08.2015 is pending on the file of the first respondent till date without any progress or disposal. It is also his case that he preferred a reminder appeal petition before the third respondent to issue proper and specific answers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and specifically insisted the second respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since there was no reply from the third respondent fo...
N. Kannan and Another Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 31.08.2015, made in S.C.No.72 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Tiruvarur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.72 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Tiruvarur. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 120-B, 394, 394 read with 109, 449, 341, 392, 302, 302 read with 109, 307 and 307 read with 34 IPC. By judgment, dated 31.08.2015, the trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them as detailed below : ad>AccusedSection of lawSentenceA.1449 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.A.1302 I.P.C.Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.A.2341 I.P.C.Fine of Rs.100/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.A.2449 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay...
Chandrasekar @ Kannan and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records pertaining to the FIR in Crime Nos.77 and 78 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal) Common Order: 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.77 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 427, 324 and 506(ii) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner in Crl. O.P.(MD) 10703 of 2016. 2.1. As a counter blast, the case in Crime No.78 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC by the 1st respondent against against the petitioners in Crl. O.P.(MD) 10704 of 2016. 3. When these matt...
T.K.S. Elangovan Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to take the complaint on file, dated 30.05.2016, enquire into the matter and file a final report before a competent Court.) 1. This Crl.O.P. is filed to direct the respondents to take the complaint, dated 30.05.2016 on file, enquire into the matter and file final report before a competent Court. 2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a Member of Parliament and belongs to a political party. When the Election process to the 15th Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, was going on, on 13.05.2016, midnight of Friday, around 12.45 a.m., the Election Commission Surveillance Team, headed by one Mr.Vijayakumar, stationed at Tirupur, chased down and seized three tanker lorries, which were escorted by three Innova Cars, said to be transporting huge amount of money to the tune of Rs.570 Crores in the service road of Peramanallur-Kunnathur Road, Chengapalli in Uthuk...
S. Sajini Begam Vs. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Periyakulam Branc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to sanction the educational loan of Rs.3,81,200/- to the Petitioner's son namely, Ajith Rahman, for pursuing his B.E. Mechanical Engineering at Pavai Engineering College, Namakkal, within a stipulated time framed fixed by this Court.) 1. It comes to be known that the Petitioner's mother has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent / Canara Bank, Periyakulam Branch, Theni District, to sanction the Educational Loan of Rs.3,81,200/-, to her son viz., Ajith Rahman, for pursuing his B.E. Mechanical Engineering at Pavai Engineering College, Namakkal, within a stipulated time to be determined by this Court. 2. The stand of the Petitioner is that her son, Ajit Rahman, had secured 399 marks out of 500 in the 10th examination and secured 788 marks in the 12th Standard examination that ...
Minor K. Priyadarshini Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner, minor Priyadarshini, in view of the injury to petitioner's right eye on 01.03.2012.) 1. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a minor, who lost her right eye, on account of the inhuman act of beating with a stick by her teacher, seventh respondent herein. The minor has come up with this Writ Petition through her mother for a direction to the respondents to pay her compensation. BACKGROUND FACTS: 2. The minor petitioner is the daughter of a driver. The minor was enrolled as a student in Rathish English Matric School owned by the sixth respondent. The seventh respondent was employed as a teacher in the said Institution. The minor was studying in LKG. 3. The mother of the minor petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of this Wr...
Valaiyakka Vs. Anitha Agnihotri, The Secretary, Government of India, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein for his willful disobedience to implement the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.(MD)No. 9989 of 2015 dated 19.06.2015 and punish respondent Nos.1 and 2.) 1. Earlier, on 19.06.2015, this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.9989 of 2015, filed by the petitioner against the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice, New Delhi and four others, had directed the First and Second Respondents to pass appropriate orders in tune with the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andolen and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2014 (3) CTC at page No.177, granting relief, on the basis of the representations of the petitioner, dated 19.09.2014 and 01.04.2015, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the petiti...
U. Prasanth Kumar Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vellore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
1. It is seen that this petitioner has been arrested by the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294[b], 323, 324,506[ii] IPC, r/w 3[1][r] and 3[1][s] of SC and ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Amendment Ordinance, 2014. Since his case has not been taken up on account of boycott of Courts, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Harish Uppal [Ex.Capt.] Vs Union of India reported in [2003] 2 SCC 45, that boycott of Courts is illegal. Therefore, this Court cannot pass any orders in violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction. Hence, this petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedies in the manner known to law....
Purushothaman Vs. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Madura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 made in S.C.No.181 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu, by allowing this appeal.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.181 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:- Charge Nos.AccusedSection of lawFirst chargeA.1 to A.3498-A I.P.C.,Second ChargeA.1 and A.2302 I.P.C.,Third ChargeA.3302 r/w 34 I.P.C., By judgment, dated 12.08.2014, the Trial Court convicted all the three accused under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the said conviction a...
A.M. Arunachalam Vs. K. Tulasi Ram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an independent and impartial Arbitrator to hear and decide the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent arising out of Joint Venture Agreement dated 28.04.2014 and to pass an interim injunction restraining the respondent or his men or agents or servants or any men or persons acting under the advise and/or instructions of the respondent from operating the above schedule mentioned quarry pending disposal of the Arbitration.) 1. We may notice at the inception that the respondent has filed the additional counter without leave of this Court. The same be taken off the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on account of the disputes arising inter se the parties from the Joint Venture Agreement dated 28.04.2014 pertaining to granite business in Chittoor-Kanipakkam quarry. 3. It is the case of the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »