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.
G. Nataraj Vs. Sagunthala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and the decreetal order dated 19.10.2012 made in I.A.No.185 of 2012 in A.S.CFR.No.11180 of 2012 (Transferred from the Principal District Court, Erode) on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and the decreetal order dated 19.10.2012 made in I.A.No.185 of 2012 in A.S.CFR.No.11180 of 2012 (Transferred from the Principal District Court, Erode) on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur. 2. The petitioner is the appellant/defendant in A.S.CFR.No.11180 of 2012, on the file of Principal District Judge, Erode. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the above suit against this petitioner / defendant for recovery of amount of a sum of Rs.1,78,725/- with the future interest on the Principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The said suit was decreed on 21.10.2011 by the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. Against the said ju...
Sakthi Rajan @ Sakthi and Another Vs. State Represented by The Inspect ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in connection with C.C.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, against the petitioners/A2 and A3. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are incriminating materials against the accused persons and therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the matter is purely civil in nature and that the amount payable and due to the defacto complainant has already been paid by the accused persons and therefore, there is no scope of the defacto comp...
V. Kamaraj and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its ...
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, to direct the 2nd respondent to rectify anomaly of Community name in Petitioner's son Transfer Certificate (Serial No.6557) and same issue fresh Transfer Certificate with correct community name as Hindu Vadukar as per the Community Certificate issued by the Revenue Authority, by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 27.06.2016 within a stipulated time fixed 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, he had admitted his son Karthik Kesavan in the Third Respondent / Balamandiram Higher Secondary School, Madurai, in the year 2014 and had submitted Community Certificate as, Hindu Vadukar . Subsequently, his son Karthik Kesavan completed 10th Standard in the Third Respondent School, in the year 2014 and...
Kamalarasan Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, R ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in History Sheet No.94/2008 dated 18.12.2008 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to close the History Sheet.) 1. The writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the History Sheet No.94 of 2008 dated 18.12.2008 with the consequential direction to the 1st respondent to close the History Sheet. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is an accused in Kenikarai Police Station Crime Nos.130 of 2008 (under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC) and 481 of 2008 (under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the cases ended in acquittal, thereby there is no case pending as against the...
S. Parthasarathy Vs. Narayanasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in A.S.No.10 of 2013 dated 20.10.2014 thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet made in O.S.No.124 of 2000 dated 20.08.2013.) 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property belonged to his grandfather Rangasamy Naicker. After his death, the father of the plaintiff viz., one Subbusamy managed the property which was purchased by the said Rangasamy Naicker for the purpose of conducting certain poojas and other activities at Kothandaramasamy temple, Periyavalavadi village. Thus, the plaintiff's father constructed a house in the suit property for the use of the employees of said temple. After the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff has been managing the temple and the property by developing the garden for the purpose of condu...
D. Mahendran Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and to quash the proceedings of the respondent in C.C.No.8 of 2016 [Charge Sheet No.1 of 2016] on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is seen that this petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector in Muthupettai village. During 2010, when there was heavy floods in that area, the Government sanctioned around Rs.30Lakhs for disbursement of aid to various villagers in Muthupettai area. It was found that there were serious irregularities in the disbursement of amount to the affected victims and therefore, a preliminary enquiry was conducted at the collectorate ...
K.S. Murugesan Vs. M. Kalavathi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.10.2007 made in M.C.No.62 of 2004 on the file of Family Court, Madurai.) 1. The husband of the respondent aggrieved by the direction of the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai issued in M.C.No.62 of 2004 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent, this revision has been made. 2. The revision petitioner and the respondent are spouses. They were blessed with a son. Actually, it is a police family. The revision petitioner joined in the State Police Service and ultimately, became an Inspector of Police. His son followed his suit as he became a police constable. 3. There were matrimonial discordance between the revision petitioner and the respondent. That led to their separation. She sought for maintenance from him in the Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.62 of 2004 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In a parallel matrimonial proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the...
Chitarasu and Others Vs. The State, represented by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 12.02.2016, made in S.C.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ariyalur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1,4 and 5 in S.C.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ariyalur. The accused 2 and 3 were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and, therefore, the case against them is being dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ariyalur. The accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294-B, 341, 324, 307 and 302 read with 149 IPC. By judgment, dated 12.02.2016, the trial Court acquitted the accused 6 and 7 from all the charges, however, convicted these three accused/appellants, as detailed below : ad>AccusedSection of lawSentenceA-1, A-4 and A-5147 I.P.C.Simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.A-1, A-4 and A-5148 I.P.C.Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each; in default,...
M. Rajendran and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Tr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits, including leave salary, post retirement benefits scheme arrears, dearness allowance arrears and all other attendant retirement benefits etc. with interest at the rate of not less than 12% per annum from the date of retirement and further directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the belated settlement of retirement benefits including the commuted value of pension, gratuity and other emoluments etc., to the petitioner payable from the date of retirement I.e.30.11.2013 to till date of actual payment.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the issue is ...
Ranjit Recreation Club, Rep. by its Secretary R. Selvaraj, Virudhunaga ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned circular issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.ka.No.417/2016/B, dated 21.07.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter of Second Respondent is filed. 3. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. According to the Petitioner/Club, it is a registered Society bearing Sl.No.132/2006 and it is a basically a Recreation Club. As a matter of fact, the Club purchased liquor cases from TASMAC godown after remitting appropriate charges. There is no sale taking place as such in the club. In reality, the members join together and consume liquor and the expenditure involved is shared. Furthermore, the Club pays a privilege fee of Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, the Petitioner/Club is running a bar for the past eight years. 5. The stand of the Petitioner/Club is that FL2 License was issu...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »