Chennai Court August 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.
Senior Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Tirunelveli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2006 made in A.S.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 made in O.S.No.702 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.) 1. The defendants, who lost the case before both the Courts below, have come forward with this second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 18.04.2006 made in A.S.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 made in O.S.No.702 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. 2. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of easementary right of necessity in respect of third schedule property and also injunction restraining the defendants, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the road and also declaration that they are entitled t...
R. Andiappan @ Rajasekar Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Av ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in P.R.C.No.316 of 2016 now pending committal on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Aranthangi and quash the same so far as it relates to the petitioner / A2 herein.) 1. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of law, though justice is achieved through law enacted by the Legislature. The power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has a salutary public purpose. 2. The cases in which the High Court should exercise the power to quash the proceedings have been enlightened in the decision reported in 1960 AIR 862 R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab and it runs as under: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the al...
P.R.K. Palanichamy Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Old Rama ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider my reply dated 21.04.2016 for notice in SR No.1089/2015.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter affidavit is filed. 2. According to the Petitioner, he entered into a Sale Agreement dated 22.09.2010 with one Ayyavu, S/o.Chinnalagan, in respect of the Property in Resurvey No.25/8B, measuring an extent of 52 cents and Resurvey No.25/7, measuring an extent of 10 cents, situated at No.87, Mangalakudi Village, Madurai East, Madurai District, wherein, he had prepared an advance payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to Ayyavu. The stand of the Petitioner is that, on failure of the said Ayyavu to execute the Sale Deed in terms of the Agreement, he filed a suit in O.S.No.54/2012, on the file of the trial Court, praying for issuance of necessary direction to Ayyavu, to execute the Sale Deed in terms of the ...
Petitioners Vs. Respondnet
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
1. As these appeal bail petitions have been directed by connected accused in the same sessions case with reference to the same Judgment, they were tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A1 / Saravanamuthu (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3031 of 2016), A2 / Selvam (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3030 of 2016) and A3 / Lakshmana Kumar (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3029 of 2016 in S.C.No.158 of 2014, in the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, while assailing their conviction and sentence, are seeking appeal bail. 3. Before the Trial Court, they stood charged under Sections 354, 342, 376 r/w 511, 323 (2 counts) I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(XI) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. 4. Appreciating the evidence let in, the Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them as detailed below: AccusedConvictionSentenceA1354-B I.P.C.7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.1,00,000/-, i/d 18 Months S.I.342 I.P.C.1 Year R.I. + Fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d 2 Months S.I.A2354-B I.P.C7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs....
R. Sankar Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Exclusive trial of Bomb Blast cases), Chennai @ Poonamallee in S.C.No.2 of 2015 dated 04.09.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Exclusive trial of Bomb Blast cases), Chennai @ Poonamallee. The second accused was one Prem Kumar S/o Harilingam. The trial Court framed as many as four charges as detailed below: Serial Number of chargeCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under Section1A1 and A2307 of IPC2A1 and A2324 of IPC3A1 and A2302 of IPC4A1 and A23 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 By judgment dated 04.09.2015, the trial Court acquitted the second accused from all the charges however, convicted the first accused / appellant herein alone for various offences as detailed below:- Rank of the AccusedPenal provision(s) u...
Shahid Husain, CISF No.944380064 Vs. The Director General, Central Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 15.08.2016 in CISF DAE Zonal HQ Hyderabad Posting Order No.41/2016 in his Letter No.E-38014/Transfer Order/DAE/GA1/2016/6183, dated 15.08.2016 and the Officer Order issued by the 4th respondent Letter No.E-38014/Adm.I/DAE(K)/2016/4449, dated 15.08.2016 and the Movement Order No.E-38014/DAE(K) Adm.I/Estt/2016/2519, dated 15.08.2016, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner at DAE Kalpakkam under the respondents 3 and 4, till the end of academic year i.e., April, 2017.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 15.08.2016 in CISF DAE Zonal HQ Hy...
B. Karthikeyan Vs. G. Roopavardhini
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Family Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in M.C.No.140 of 2015 and set aside the Order, dated 30.03.2016.) 1. As both the learned counsels representing the revision petitioner and the respondent are present and the scope involved in this revision is very narrow, we have decided to dispose of this revision today at the admission stage itself. 2. Roopavardhini / respondent and Karthikeyan / revision petitioner are spouses. The marital bondage arose between them on 09.09.2013 continuous even today. They were not blessed with any children. Subsequently, due to matrimonial discordance, they started living separately. She sought for maintenance in M.C.No.140 of 2015. Ultimately, it came to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. 3. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner got a good opportunity to work in Australia. He is working there. Finally, the maintenance...
Lakshmandas V. Bathija and Another Vs. S.P. Ramamoorthy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6702 of 2010: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the case in C.C.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli as for as the petitioners are concerned. Prayer in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6704 of 2010: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the case in S.T..C.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli as for as the petitioners are concerned.) B. Gokuldas, J. 1. earned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these criminal original petitions and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, both the Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed....
P. Selvarasu and Another Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(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 and disburse the petitioner's daughter namely S.Sathya, educational loan amount of Rs.3,61,650/- based on the Bonafide Certificate, dated 17.09.2014 issued by the Christian College of Nursing, Santhipuram, Ambigai, Dindigul District, based on the Petitioner's representation, dated 25.07.2016, within the period stipulated by this Court.) 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 Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his daughter S.Sathya, had completed 12th Standard, by securing 988 Marks out of 1200 Marks and participated in the counseling conducted by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Medical Education 2014, on 22.08.2014. As a matter of fact, the provisional allotment order was given by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Medical Educ...
S. Baskar Mathuram Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its, Principal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the First Information Report in Cr.No.81 of 2016 on the file of the 10 Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently i) to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to adequately compensate the innocent children who have been affected by the illegal registration of the First Information Report in Crime No.81 of 2016 on the file of the Respondent. ii) to direct the 5th respondent to take appropriate steps to declare and notify Usilampatti and Peraiyur Sub Divisions, Madurai District to be an Untouchability prone area and appoint a Special Officer under Rule 10 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 to carry out rehabilitation works relating to the proper implementation of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and prevent, avoid re-occurrence of Atrocity in that area. (iii) to direct the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »