Chennai Court August 2016 Judgments
Markabandhu Vs. State By: The Inspector of Police, Ponnai Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment, dated 11.12.2014, made in S.C.No.241 of 2012, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.) S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.241 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District at Ranipet. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 11.12.2014, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three 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 Mr.Easwaran. P.W.1 is the ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thenmohan and Another Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct the fair enquiry and remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet on the file of the respondent No.4 forthwith.) 1. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to direct the third respondent to remove his name from the history sheet maintained by the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner's name has already been removed from the history sheet pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District. 3. In view of the subsequent events relating to the removal of the name of the petitioner from the history sheet, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently,...
Tag this Judgment!D. Issac Vs. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation, dated 22.07.2016 seeking payment of assured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- within interest as per Policy No.323648532.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner had addressed a representation, dated 22.07.2016 to the First Respondent/Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, Chennai-2, seeking payment of assured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest as per Policy No.323648532. The said representation is pending as on date. In fact, the petitioner had claimed the assured sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest from the First Respondent. 3. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 22...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajasimman Vs. The Superintendent of Police- Virudhunagar District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with the closure report preferred by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner's complaint dated 27.01.2016 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register a case / FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This application has been filed seeking to quash the closure report filed by the second respondent in connection with the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.01.2016 and to register a case based on the said complaint. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint of the petitioner had been closed by the respondent by adopting an illogical and unwarranted method; before the Court it has been stated that enquiry has been conducted and closed; when the Court verified the grounds for cl...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaj Vs. The Director General of Defence Estates and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 19.2.2014.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.2.2014, and pass such further orders, as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner has stated that she is the caretaker and the hereditary Muthavalli of the Hazarath Syed Shah Ali Masthan Chaman Shah Ali Zindey Masthan Madarsha E-Shah Ali Masthan Dargah (hereinafter referred to as the Dargah ), situated at No.10/1, G.S.T. Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, having an exten...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raja Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned circular in F.No.S.Misc/16/2015-CBS, dated 28.12.2015, and to quash the portion, relating to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in Annexure II and further , to direct the respondent to accept the application, dated 02.11.2015, filed by the petitioner for the grant of Custom Broker Licence and for writing the examination, conducted under Regulation 6 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.) 1. Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent-Customs Department. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the circular, issued by the third respondent, dated 28.12.2015, and to direct the respondents to accept the application, dated 02.11.201...
Tag this Judgment!R. Renuga Devi Vs. R. Elangovan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.09.2014 made in W.P.No.15799 of 2014.) 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the proceedings dated 29.08.2016 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. 3. In view of the order dated 29.08.2016, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. The Contempt Petition is closed with the above observation....
Tag this Judgment!R. Mohanakrishnan and Others Vs. The State represented by the Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records pertaining to P.R.C. No.21 of 2016 in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Allikulam and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to P.R.C. No.21 of 2016 in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Allikulam and quash the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name. 3 On the complaint lodged by Vaishnavi, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2015 and after completing the investigation, has filed a final report in P.R.C. No.21 of 2016 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai against Mohanakrishnan and 6 others for offences under Section 376, 417 and 506(I) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, challenging which R. Mohanakrishnan (A1), K. Raj...
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnasamy Vs. K. Dhanalakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.19 of 2015 dated 06.04.2016 and set aside the same.) 1. A husband dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted to his wife and son in M.C.No.19 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai has directed this revision. 2. It is not in dispute that the marital bondage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, which came into existence on 16.05.2010 continues even now. The couples were blessed with one son, he is second respondent. Due to matrimonial dispute, now the spouses are living separately. 3. In the circumstances, the first respondent, in M.C.No.19 of 2015 sought for maintenance to herself and her son. The learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai considering the evidence and the financial capacity of both sides directed him to pay Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayam, Institute of Sciece and Technology, (Print Un ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Bar Council of India to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2015 and conduct an inspection to the petitioner law college at Arasanoor Village, Sivagangai District forthwith and consequently direct the respondent to grant approval for starting three years L.L.B. Degree course in the petitioner law school situated at Arasanoor Village, Sivagangai District, Tamil Nadu.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2015 requesting the Bar Council of India to conduct inspection for the purpose of granting approval for starting three years L.L.B. Degree course. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of giving a representation wayback 21.12.2015, the Statutor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »