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.
Sakkanan @ Thundu Sakkanan Vs. State Through The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 30.03.2015 made in S.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 30.03.2015, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant 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 Mr.Chandran. The accused is his brother. PW-2 and PW-3 are the other brothers ...
Parvathi Vs. Secretary to Government, Transport (R.W.1) Department, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take immediate steps to sanction family pension payable by the Government to the petitioner within a time frame.) 1. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take immediate steps to sanction family pension to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband A.Srinivasan worked as Traffic Inspector in the respondent Corporation, Kancheepuram Region and retired from service on 31.08.1997. Initially, he was working in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department upto 31.12.1971 and subsequently, in the then Pallavan Transport Corporation from 01.01.1972 to 30.04.1975. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the respondent Corporation with effect fr...
Arumugam and Others Vs. Ponni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and orders dated 19.06.2013 and 11.11.2014 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2013 and I.A.No.656 of 2014 in O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.) Common Order 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.216 of 2013 in O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, the defendants have filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.84 of 2015. 2. C.R.P.(NPD).No.85 of 2015 has been filed by the defendants challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.656 of 2014 in O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. Since the defendants did not appear before the trial Court, the trial Court passed an exparte decree on 19.10.2012. 5. The application in I.A.No.216 of 2013 was filed by the plain...
Murugaiah and Another Vs. State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment dated 09.04.2015, made in S.C.No.169 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.169 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai. The first accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 09.04.2015, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further, sent...
Dharmaraj Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment and Conviction dated 06.09.2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.46 of 2007 and acquit the Appellant.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.46/2007 on the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 6.9.2007 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed against him, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Ramalakshmi was given marriage with one Dharmaraj, who is the 1st accused. The PW-1 Karuppan is the father of the deceased Ramalakshmi. At the time of marriage, the father of the deceased provided house hold art...
Shanmugavel Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Thoothuku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, in S.C.No.212 of 2013 dated 16.06.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.212/2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court) Tuticorin. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 16.06.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Sivanammal. The accused is her husband. They were residing at Vallinayagapuram in Tuticorin District. The accused was a drunkard. He used to...
Sundaram Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vachakarapatti Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 18.09.2010, made in S.C.No.92 of 2010, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Virudhunagar. ) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.92 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Virudhunagar. There were three other accused by name Karuppasamy, Senthilkumar and Muniyandi and they were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively in the case. The trial Court framed as many as two charges against the accused. The first charge was against the first accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was against the accused Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC and the accused 2 to 4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment ...
Veerammal and Others Vs. Vasantha and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the (Award)Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 1992, dated 16.3.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub-Court), Periyakulam.) 1. When the matter came up for hearing on 22.09.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants/Claimants and hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ''for dismissal''. Even today, also there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel for the second respondent is present. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs....
S. Periyasamy and Another Vs. The Executive Officer, Tirunelveli Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the common order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.22900 and 22901 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent the Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant in W.A(MD)No.1467 of 2015 is the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.22900 of 2015 and according to him, he registered his name in the Employment Exchange. Pursuant to which, his name was sponsored for appointment of 'Jump Operator' in the respondent Town Panchayat during June 2001 and after his appearance in the interview, he was selected and he was also issued with an appointment order on 09.07.2001. The appellant / writ petitioner was also subjected to medical examination and after completion of all formalities, he was given the appointment initially on a consolidated pay a Rs.2000/- per month and subsequently, brought into time scale of pay, after completion of three years, with effect from 23.06...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Vs. Malayathai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2002, dated 18.11.2003, on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukkottai.) 1. When the matter came up for hearing on 16.09.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ''for dismissal''. Even today, also there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 is present. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »