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.
Mookandi @ Peria Esakki @ Esakkimuthu and Others Vs. State Rep. by The ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order made in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2016 in S.C.No.267 of 2012 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge Tirunelveli dated 12.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order made in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2016 in S.C.No.267 of 2012 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge Tirunelveli dated 12.03.2016. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3.An application to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 filed before the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.23/2016 has been dismissed on 12.03.2016 and challenging the same, this petition is filed. 4. It is seen that a case has been registered against the petitioners herein under Sections 294(b), 307, 326 and 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC. P.Ws.1 and 2 had been examined on 04.04.2013 itself. At the stage when Investigating Officer had to be examined, the petition to reca...
M/s. Rahmathullah Sha Mosque Durga Private Wakf-Ulal-Aulad Vs. The Set ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to implement the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(MD)No.8419 of 2015 dt. 04.06.2015 and pass final order, as per the enquiry conducted by him on 16.10.2015 for issuance of Ryotwari Patta to petitioner's land situated in Survey no.208 of Samayapuram Village, Mannachanallur Village, Tiruchirappalli District, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble 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, the land comprised in S.F.No.208 of Samayapuram Village of Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District was originally gifted to Rahamathullah by the Queen Meenakshi Ammal, during the fasli year 1158 (corresponding to 1773 A.D). Further, after the Moghul Empire came to power, this ar...
V. Ramakrishnan Vs. The Conservator Tirunelveli Region and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1220/2015/ku, dated 03.06.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to repay the deposited amount to the Petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order of the Second Respondent / Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli, dated 03.06.2016, is an illegal one in the eye of Law. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Second Respondent / Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli, had failed to appreciate that the impugned order was passed by him without providing sufficient opportunity and also the Petitioner was not called upon to submit any explanation, prior to passing of the impugned orde...
R. Murali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the 3rd and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2012 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. R.Murali, who was one of the Most Backward Class candidates, participated in the written examination conducted on 24.06.2012 for the post of Grade - II Police Constable. He has also secured 51 marks in the written examination and 15 marks in the Physical Endurance Test, totally 66 marks he has secured. But his claim is, as per the information received by him under the RTI Act, for the abovesaid post, the cut off mark fixed for Most Backward Class candidates in Armed Reserve is, 73 marks, whereas, in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, Jail Warden and Firemen, it is 67 marks. As the petitioner has secured 66 marks, he was not selected due to shortage of one mark. 2. Learn...
Stephen Selvaraj Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, All Women Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in S.C.No.124 of 2012 dated 21.04.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.124 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. He stood charged for offences under Section 376 (1) I.P.C., Section 417 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. By judgment dated 21.04.2014, the trial Court convicted him under Sections 376 (1) and 417 I.P.C. However, acquitted him from the charge under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376(1) I.P.C and to undergo rigorous impris...
J. Janikiraman Vs. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent vide Ref.No.786/2014/G and M-1, dated 25.06.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard Ms.S.Deepika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 25.06.2016, in and by which, the petitioner's Appeal Petition filed against the order passed by the second respondent dated 17.09.2015, wherein penalty was imposed on the petitioner for alleged illicit mining, was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 3. It may not be necessary to go into the factual position, except to note that the the petitioner was granted a lease to quarry 4725 lorry...
R. Sethumadhavan Vs. Union of India, rep.by the General Manager, South ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent made in O.A.No.436 of 2010 dated 31.10.2011, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to re-compute the basic pension of the petitioner based on PB 2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/-, with effect from 01.01.2006, with all the consequential benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in O.A.No.436 of 2010, dated 31.10.2011, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. 2. The petitioner herein, as applicant, has filed Original Application No.436 of 2010, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein the present first respondent has been arrayed as respondent. In the application it is...
E.M.S. Segumaran Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(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 demarcate and fix the boundaries of the Petitioner's property situated in S.No.618/1, 618/2, Tallakulam, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai, by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 6.6.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties situated in Town Survey No.618/1, 618/2, Tallakulam, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. In fact, the total extent of the said property comes around 12 cents I.e., 5232 sq.fts. 5. From the date of purchase in the year 2008, the Petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties. He has decided to renovate his building, since the properties are old building in ch...
Selvam Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, T.4, Maduravoyal Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee in S.C.No.261 of 2012 dated 15.09.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.261 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. There were two other accused by name Prakash and Manikandan @ Mani @ Kutty, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 2 respectively. According to the final report filed by the police, there were totally five persons involved in the crime. Two others by name Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Venkatesh @ Venkatesan were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and therefore the case against them was split up and dealt with separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the appellant (3rd accused) and the accused 1 and 2 faced the trial before the lower Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sectio...
V. Anandan and Others Vs. The Superintending Engineer (Occupier), Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court, dated 14.12.2012 made in W.P.No.5679 of 2011.) Common Judgment P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. These instant writ appeals arise from the common order, dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.5679 of 2011 and 778 of 2011. 2. W.P.No.5679 of 2011 was filed by the Management to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai, dated 25.11.2010 conferring permanent status to the 71 workers under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. 3. W.P.No.778 of 2011 was filed by the Minsara Oppantha Thozhilalargal sangam to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Management to comply with the order, dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. 4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Management and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Lab...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »