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.
Gnanasundar Vs. The State, by Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set-aside the conviction imposed in the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, made in S.C.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Erode, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.)S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 12.06.2015, the trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, 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:- The deceased, in this case, was one Subramani. The accused is the son of the deceased. The deceased was an agriculturist, by profe...
Rajendran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyaku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the proceeding No.A3/4186/2014 as early as possible within a time frame stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, an extent of land measuring 11 acre in New Sy.No.254/8 in Neiyoor Village is belonged to Arulmigu Muthalamman Sudalaimada Swamy and the said land is standing in patta No.6724. As a matter of fact, the revenue records viz., A Register is reflecting the deity's name in patta No.6724 for Sy.No.254/8. 4. The real grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent had changed patta No.6724 in his name, without any basis. As such, on 18.09.2014, one of his relatives viz., Rajagopal S/o.Rajasundaram filed a petition before the 1st respondent to remove...
Jeba Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent and instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 09.02.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent and instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 09.02.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enq...
Poopandi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.123 of 2014 in C.C.No.36 of 2014, dated 04.05.2015, on the file of the Special Court for Trial Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.) 1. A3 in C.C.No.36 of 2014 (originally C.C.No.17 of 2008), on the file of the learned Special Judge under P.C.Act, Sivagangai, in this revision canvases the correctness of dismissal of his discharge petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.123 of 2014. 2. In connection with a Scheme framed by the Government for the Adi - Dravidars to be managed by the Department of Animal Husbandry, allegations have been made as against certain public servants. In this connection, F.I.R., in Crime No.5 of 2001, under Sections 120-B I.P.C., r/w 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) of P.C.Act and Section 120-B I.P.C., r/w Sections 409, 420, 467, 471 I.P.C., r/w 467, 477-A and 167 I.P.C., has been registered by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corrupt...
M. Ravi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 1.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.31447 of 2015 on the file of this court.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 1.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31447 of 2015, rejecting the claim putforth by the petitioner for transfer of investigation of the case of suspicious death of her daughter Vishnupriya, to Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- One Vishnupriya, was serving as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Tiruchengode, Namakkal District and during the course of her service, she was entrusted with the case of murder of an Engineering Student by name Gokul Raj and while the investigation was in progress, the family members of the said Vishnupriya were informed that she had co...
Manickam Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Salem District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C.No.56 of 2014 dated 02.03.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Section 302 of IPC by the judgement dated 02.03.2015 in S.C.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. Challenging the same, he has come up with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Chinnammal. The accused is her husband. They were residing in their own tiled house at Mariamman Temple Street, Chandirapillaivalasu Village. According to the case, the accused used to consume liquor. This was objected to by the deceased. Enraged over the same, it...
A.S. Mallika Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Sivagan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 23.6.2016 and investigate into the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 23.6.2016 and investigate into the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the la...
G. Renganayaki Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent vide I.No.4/AA1/2015, dated 31.12.2015 and to quash the same and further to direct the third respondent to refund the excess stamp duty and registration fees of Rs.1,96,500/- collected from the Petitioner for the registration of document No.323 of 2016 at Chokkikulam Sub-Registrar's Office, Madurai with interest at 18% per annum from the date of registration I.e., 12.1.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3. 4. According to the Petitioner, some properties were purchased out of herself and from her husband's income in favour of her deceased son Dr.G.Kannan, even when he was not employed and earning. As such, even before his death, she her...
Rangasamy Vs. State by: Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Fast Track), Erode in S.C.No.87 of 2014 dated 11.05.2015.) S. Nagamuthu.J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.87/2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Fast Track), Erode. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court by judgment dated 11.05.2015, convicted the accused for offence 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 six 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 Mrs.Rasammal. She was the wife of the accused. The accused and the deceased were residing at Malayapalayam Village in Namakkal District. Due to some matrimonial misund...
M. Mohammed Iqbal Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary steps to cancel the sale deed dated 14.9.1994 in Document No.642/1994 before the 3rd respondent and implement the order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.47149/U3/15 dated 27.10.2015.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate appearing for R-1 to R-3. In respect of R-4, Court notice was served on 14.06.2016 and today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, there is no appearance on her behalf either in person or through the Learned Counsel. 2. According to the petitioner, one Modeen Abdul Hameed (since deceased) executed a sale deed in favour of 4th respondent and the same was registered on the file of the 3rd respondent. The stand of the petitioner is that Modeen Abdul Hameed had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent, because of the reason t...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »