Chennai Court September 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.
Rameshchandran and Another Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment made in S.C.No.59 of 2015, dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli and set aside the same by allowing this appeal.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.59/2015 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli Division, Thiruchirappalli. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 of I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused 1 and 2. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 30.09.2015 convicted the appellants under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The set off was allowed under section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused 1 and 2. 3. The case of the prosecution ...
Sugesan Transport Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.19197 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondents to register the petitioner's complaint dated 17.08.2016.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register the petitioners' complaints dated 17.08.2016. 2. Every Judge who is assigned the Section 482, Cr.P.C. portfolio has to perforce undergo an unenviable task of dealing with petitions praying for a direction to the police to register an FIR on the complaint that is said to have been given by the petitioners. Each Judge would devise his or her own mechanism to deal with the spate of such petitions which will be in hundreds week after week. 3. When I assumed this portfolio, I too had to deal with these petitions and the method I evolved was to read the complaints, hear the counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor and pass the following orders, depending upon the fact...
M/s. Brindavan Cotton Mills Private Limited Vs. Demerged Company Adhil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 11(a)(10) and 79 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to sanction the scheme of arrangement (demerger). 1. These Company Petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement (demerger) (in short Scheme) between the Demerged company with the Resulting company with effect from 01.10.2015. The Scheme is appended as Annexure '5' to C.P.No.147 of 2016 and Annexsure '4' to C.P.No.148 of 2016. 2. M/s.Brindavan Cotton Mills Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.147 of 2016 is the Demerged company and M/s.Adhilakshmi Spinning Mills Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.148 of 2016 is the Resulting Company. 3. A perusal of the records shows that the respective petitioner company have complied with the formalities as prescribed under the Companies Act and the Rules framed therein. A Certificate of the Chartered Accountant has been file...
Pattan @ Pattu and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.304/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. There was yet another co-accused arrayed as accused No.4 by name, Kandhaiah. The trial Court had framed as many as 6 charges against the accused as detailed below: ChrageAccusedPenal Provisions1A1 to A4120(B) r/w 302 IPC2A1 to A3341 IPC3A4302 r/w 109 IPC4A1 to A3302 r/w 34 IPC5A1294(b) IPC6A1 to A3506(ii) IPC 2. By judgment dated 02.03.2016, the trial Court has acquitted the 4th accused from all the charges. However, convicted and sentenced these appellants 1 to 3 alone as detailed below: AccusedConviction under SectionsSentence imposedA1341 IPCone month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 506(ii) IPCSix months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs....
K.M. Karupannan Vs. R. Saravanan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to allow this Second Appeal setting aside the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2013 made in A.S.No.192 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Court, Trichy confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2011 made in O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff / appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.02.1999 and for consequential relief in respect of the suit property. 3. The case of the plaintiff / appellant is that he entered into an agreement of sale on 04.02.1999 with the defendant / respondent in respect of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It was the further case of the plaintiff / appellant that on the date of agreeme...
Bijayshree Resources Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Subasree Real Estates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.06.2012 passed in Application No.4709 of 2011 in C.S.No.1584 of 1988 on the file of original side of this Court.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The appellant company / defendant entered into an agreement dated 18.06.1984 with the respondent partnership firm / plaintiff in respect of a land owned by the appellant measuring 81 grounds, situated in Tiruvallur, Chengalpattu District, in which 100 plots were to be carved out. The appellant represented that they had entered into an agreement for sale with the original owners and proposed to convert the land as house site plots on obtaining sanction from the Town Planning authorities and intend to sell the plotted area, which the respondent agreed to purchase at a rate of Rs.5,500/- per ground subject to the conditions specified in the agreement. The sale was to be made by the appellant to the respondent or his nomin...
Ranjit and Another Vs. Indira
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the judgement and decree in I.A.No.24 of 2015 in O.S.No.157 of 2012, dated 23.4.2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Rengasamy Vs. Syed Mustafa
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 13.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.880 of 2014 in O.S.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.) 1. The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.880 of 2014 in O.S.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.220 of 2007 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy for specific performance and in the said suit, the petitioner was set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 25.10.2010. To set aside the said exparte decree, the petitioner filed application along with section 5 application in I.A.No.880 of 2014, to condone the delay of 1453 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was suffering from small v...
Sivakumar Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattin ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai made in S.C.No.4 of 2013 dated 15.07.2015 and allow the above criminal appeal.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the defacto-complainant in S.C.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 324 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C against this respondents 2 to 9/Accused 1, 2, 4, 6 to 10 in S.C.No.4 of 2013. 2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.4/13 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Pattukottai, Tanjavur District on 15.07.2015. In the said case, 10 persons were shown as accused, among them the case as against the 3rd accused namely Balaji was splitted in S.C.No.25/14 on the file of the same court. Further the accused No.5 ...
K. Vinothini Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records relating to the order of detention made in C.M.P.No.81/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2015 dated 04-11-2015 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Kannan @ Ramachandran now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty and pass orders.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records, relating to detention order dated 04-11-2015 passed in C.M.P.No.81/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2015 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu by name Kannan @ Ramachandran and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »