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.
Rajesh Vs. State:Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Mahalir Judge (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.68 of 2012 dated 16.09.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahalir Judge (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Tiruvallur. There were three other accused in this case. The trial court framed four charges against the accused as detailed below:- ad>Sl.NoAccusedSection of law1A.1341, 323 and 302 I.P.C.2A.2341, 323 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.3A.3341, 323 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.4A.4341, 323 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 16.09.2014, the trial Court convicted A.1 for offences under sections 341 and 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The...
A. Dawood Bi Vs. Palanisamy District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order passed in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.20015 of 2014, dated 10.12.2014.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 4 that Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition has filed W.P.No.17542 of 2014 before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court and obtained an order of interim stay. As such, it is represented that the present Contempt Petition would not lie. Also, the Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition without mentioning about the interim stay granted by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17542 of 2014. 2. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
Stalin Vs. State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurai D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Special PCR Court), Madurai District to consider his bail application filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.498 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Special PCR Court), Madurai District to consider his bail application filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.498 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and r/w Section 3(2)(V-a) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014 in Crime No.498 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bai...
P. Pugalenthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Chief Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in the order bearing G.O. (Ms.) No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 02.02.2016 issued by the respondent and quashing paragraph (4) of the said G.O.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The petitioner had originally raised the issue of the procedure followed in the investigation of corruption cases filed against the All India Service Officers in Tamil Nadu. In this behalf, Writ Petition No.17949 of 2010 was filed and when the writ petition was still pending, the judgment came to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2014 SC 2140. Thus, proceedings were closed with the assurance of the State Government to re-visit the entire procedure in the light of the said judgment. 2. It is, thereafter, that G.O. (Ms.) No.10 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Dep...
Dr. K. Kandasamy Vs. Mahalakshmi Metal and Scrap Processing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Kancheepuram in C.C. No.73 of 2012 against the petitioner/accused and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Kancheepuram in C.C. No.73 of 2012 against the petitioner/accused and quash the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The petitioner is facing a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the Act ) in C.C. No.73/2012 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kancheepuram, challenging which, he is before this Co...
Murugasamy Vs. The Commissioner, Tirupur and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.A1/7/2012/IV, dated 15.3.2012 and quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to grant renewal of the building permission to the writ petitioner.) 1. Heard Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Shanthi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.B.Neduncheziyan, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner is a physically challenged person, having been born deaf and dumb. It appears that he is running a school for the children, who are born deaf and dumb and this school is run in a land, which according to the petitioner, belonged to their family and his parents had orally gifted the property to him in the year 1997. The petitioner claims to have demolished the existing building and reconstructed the school building in 200...
S. Karuppusamy and Another Indumathi, Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondents for not wilfully complying with the order of this Court made in W.P.No.18224 of 2014, dated 12.11.2014.) 1. There is no representation on the side of the Petitioners. However, there is representation on the side of the Respondents. Also, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed in W.P(MD)No.18224 of 2014, dated 12.11.2014 is complied with by the authorities concerned and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this Contempt Petition. 2. In view of the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
Prabhu Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-PCR Court, Madurai to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner on the same day in Crime No.361 of 2015 on the file of the respondent.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-PCR Court, Madurai to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner on the same day in Crime No.361 of 2015 on the file of the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC and r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.361 of 2015 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer. 2. The allegation in the...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vellore Vs. Latha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellanies Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, against the Judgement and decree dated 15.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.174 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( Subordinate Judge) at Gudiyatham, Vellore District.) 1. Questioning the negligence as well as quantum, the appellant/Insurance Company, who is the third respondent in the Claim petition in MCOP No.174 of 2008 has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. 2. As it is manifested from the records, the respondents 1 and 2, had moved the Claims Tribunal with a Claim Petition in MCOP No.174 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the compensation for the death of one Balaganesan, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the third respondent herein. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that at the time of filing the Claim Petition, the third respondent/minor B.Mohan...
Minor K. Aravinthan Vs. The Principal, Sainik School, Tiruppur Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in No.SSA/Doc/6050 dated 26.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 and quash the proceedings dated 26.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 and consequently direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner to pursue his school education in the first respondent school.) 1. The father of the petitioner has sworn to the affidavit on behalf of his son, Minor K.Aravinthan and he would state that his son/petitioner is a student of first respondent school, studying VII Standard with Roll No.6050 and the said school is functioning under the second respondent and it is one of the Sainik Schools in this country. It is further stated by the petitioner that local administration of the first respondent school is looked after by a Local Board of Administration, whose Chairman is the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) of...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »