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.
M. Sundar Vs. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (East) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the charge sheet in C.C. No.16 of 2014 pending trial on the file of the Additional Mahila Magistrate, Coimbatore.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the charge sheet in C.C. No.16 of 2014, pending trial on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial level) Coimbatore. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3. On the complaint lodged by Ramya (the second respondent-de facto complainant), the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2013 on 27.07.2013 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in C.C. No.16 of 2014 before the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial level), Coimbatore against (1) Philip Joseph-(A1) (2) Mary-(A2), (3) Usha-(A2) and (4) Sundar-(A4), for offences under Sections 498-...
Marry Vs. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.c.No.159 of 2012 dated 17.04.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the mother of the deceased. The respondents 2 to 5 are Accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.159 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. The 1st respondent is the complainant in the said case. They stood charged for offences under Section 498 and 304-B of IPC. The trial court by judgement dated 17.04.2013, acquitted the respondents 2 to 5. Challenging the same, the mother of the deceased 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.Jacqueline Jerome. When she was studying in a college, A1 also studied in the same college. They got introduced themselves which developed into a love for each other. A1 and the dece...
Vasumathi Marimuthu Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the orders dated 28.07.2016 made in Crl.M.P.Nos. 2106 and 1011 of 2009 in C.C.No.15945 of 2003, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.) 1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 28.07.2016 made in Crl.M.P.Nos. 2106 and 1011 of 2009 in C.C.No.15945 of 2003, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in and by which, the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, were dismissed. 2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.1032 of 2010 is the wife of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.1033 of 2010. They have been arrayed as A1 and A2 respectfully in C.C.No.15945 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons f...
S. Geetha Ranjani Vs. Rabindranath Tagore and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(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 made in W.P.No.17795 of 2014, dated 5.11.2014 on the file of this Court.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the Respondents/Contemnors that in W.A.(MD)No.1150 of 2016 as against the order, dated 5.11.2014 in W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014, stay was granted on 29.09.2016. Also that, an endorsement is made in the Contempt Petition to the effect that the Contempt Petition is withdrawn. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the present Contempt Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Five Star Recreation Club, Rep.by its Secretary G.Jeyaprakash Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.ka.No.417/2016/B, dated 21.07.2016, quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter of Respondent No.2 is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner / Society / Club, it is basically a Recreation Club and having Registration Number Sl.No.14/2012. In the Petitioner / Club, there is an attached Bar. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner / Club purchases the liquor cases from TASMAC Godown, after remitting appropriate charges. In fact, the Members joined together and consumed liquor and the expenditure involved is shared. Towards this, the Petitioner / Club pays privilege fee to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, the Petitioner / Club is running a Bar, for the past four years. For the benefit of the Bar members, F.L.2 License was taken. 4. The stand of the Petitioner / C...
Poosari Rasu @ Karuthandi Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to stop the funeral processions through the Petitioners agricultural land in Trichy District, Manapparai Taluk, F.Keezhaiyur Village, in S.F.Nos.55/2 and 55/5 based on the Petitioner's Representation dated 07.06.2016.) 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after some arguments, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to approach the concerned Civil forum to get his grievance redressed. 2. Recording the said fact, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs....
A. Sahaya Diraviam and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Personal pay to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.01.2011 and to grant Rupees 750/- towards Personal Pay as per G.O. Ms. No. 23 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1 by considering the representation sent by the Petitioners dated 06.06.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Personal pay to them with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.01.2011 and to grant Rs.750/- towards Personal Pay, as per G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011, issued by the first respondent, by considering their representation, dated 06.06.2015 within a stipulated time. 2. The petitioner states that they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers on various...
Dr.J. Jeyakannan Vs. The Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.310/ 01183/2014 passed by the Honourable Administrative Member, CAT, Madras Bench dated 25.2.2015 and the order passed in O.A.No.1183/2014 by the Third Member Mr.Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy (Judicial Member), CAT, Madras Bench dated 3.7.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to implement the order passed by the Honourable Judicial Member, CAT, Madras bench dated 5.3.2015.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.1183 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. 2. The petitioner herein along with two more petitioners, as applicants, have filed Original Application No.1183 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administ...
Rani Vs. Vinayagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.3.2014 passed in E.P.No.112 of 2004 in O.S.No.518 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.) 1. Challenging the order passed in E.P.No.112 of 2004 in O.S.No.518 of 1996, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, the Decree Holder has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petitioner filed a Suit in O.S.No.518 of 1996 for declaration and permanent injunction. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial court, the trial Court set him ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 10.02.2004. 3. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.518 of 1996, the plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.112 of 2004 stating that the respondent/judgment debtor had disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction. Subsequent to the decree passed in O.S.No.518 of 1996, the Revision Petitioner als...
Kutti @ Vijayakumar Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu in S.C.No.223 of 2011, dated 27.01.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalput. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 27.01.2016, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life (No fine was imposed). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The accused is a resident of Old Mambakkam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The deceased Amirthammal also was a resident of the same village. On account of the boundary dispute regarding house sites belonging to the accused an...
- ‹ Prev
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- Next ›
- Last »