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.
Lawrence @ Aranch Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Through the Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.65 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court by the Judgment dated 19.01.2013.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No. 65/2011, on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 19.01.2013 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years. 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 Anandakumar and the accused are nearby residen...
Anbalagan Vs. State by, Inspector of Police, Nilgiris District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the trial Court namely Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor to pass an order, directing further investigation based on the petition filed by the petitioner during March 2008.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the trial Court, namely the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor to pass an order directing further investigation based on the petition filed by the petitioner during March 2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.422 of 2003 and after completing the investigation, filed a Final Report in C.C.No.7 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, for offences u/s 323 and 324 IPC against the class teachers of the petitioner's son, on the allegation that they had assaulted him. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent police...
GTN Enterprises Limited Spinning Division, Dharmapuram Road and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the Common order of this Court, dated 14.10.2011 made in W.P.Nos.2650 and 2651 of 2009.) Kalaiyarasan, J 1. These two intra court appeals arise from the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.10.2011 in W.P.Nos.2650 and 2651 of 2009. 2. The appellants as writ petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents or their men from demanding or levying market fee on the sale of cotton waste, where such sale takes place in the course of export of cotton waste out of the territory of India. 3. The issues in both the writ petitions are one and the same and both the writ appeals are also against the common order passed in two writ petitions and hence, common order is being passed in both these writ appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) The appellants / petitioners companies are engaged in the manufacture...
Vari Agencies Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in CFR No.2028 in Unfiled O.S.No.- of 2016, dated 31.08.2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the fair and decreetal order passed in CFR No.2028 in Unfiled O.S.No.- of 2016, dated 31.08.2016, by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru. 2. The petitioners herein as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the 4 notices dated 29.09.2015 for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff is illegal and void ab initio and consequently for an order of injunction, restraining the first defendant from passing any further order on the strength of the notices dated 29.09.2015 issued against the plaintiff firm for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The plaint was initially presented before t...
G. Santhakumari Vs. G. Murthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2007 made in A.S.No.325 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court - V), Chennai, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.02.2006 made in O.S.No.1771 of 2003 on the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who lost the case in the first appellate court. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff's husband Venkataiah is the original owner of the suit property under the Assignment order of the Government. He executed a settlement deed on 20.08.2001 in favour of the plaintiff. He passed away on 17.11.2001. After the settlement deed, the plaintiff visited the suit property on 08.10.2001. She found the defendant, who is step mother's son of her husband, Venkataiah had been in possession of the suit property as a trespasser. ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant and Mr.N.Manokaran, Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Crl.O.P.No.14216 of 2016 before this Court 'Seeking Leave' to file an 'Appeal' in Crl.A.SR.No.24665 of 2016 as against the judgment dated 18.04.2016 made in S.T.C.No.233 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in acquitting the Respondent/Accused. 3. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the Respondent/Accused in S.T.C.No.233 of 2012 by means of a judgment dated 18.04.2016 is contrary to Law, Weight of evidence and Probabilities of the case. 4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant urges before this Court that the trial Court has not noted the fact that the signature seen in the disputed cheque is similar to th...
Raja Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Trichy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.16 of 2013 by the order dated 10.01.2014 and to set aside the conviction and sentence order dated 10.01.2014 by acquitting the Appellant herein.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.16/2013 on the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C against this Appellant/Accused. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 10.01.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment, under Section 201 of I.P.C to undergo three years of Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences shall run concurrently. Challenging the s...
K.S. Arumugam Vs. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.01.2016 in Election O.P.No.190 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur District.) 1. Challenging the order passed in Election O.P.No.190 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur, the petitioner who had contested the Poonamallee Panchayat Union Election held on 19.10.2011 for the post of Village Panchayat of Kannapalayam Village Panchayat, has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate in the election. Out of the 2602 valid votes polled, the 6th respondent secured 967 votes, the 5th respondent secured 935 votes, the 4th respondent secured 599 votes and the revision petitioner secured 101 votes. Since the 6th respondent had secured the highest number of votes, he was declared successful on the date of counting (i.e.) on 21.10.2011. 3. The brief case of the petitioner...
A. Kunjammal Vs. T. Francis Rajkumar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the registry of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur to number the suit in O.S.Sr.No.421 of 2015 which was presented on 04.02.2015.) 1. In view of the limited prayer made, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up during the time of admission. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 2. The suit filed by the petitioner before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was returned for presentation to a proper court pursuant to the order dated 6 November 2014 in I.A.No.2336 of 2014 in O.S.No.5010 of 2011. The application was filed by the third defendant on the ground that the Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petitioner pursuant to the order dated 6 November 2014 re-presented the suit before the Principal District and Sessions Court at Tiruvallur on 04.02.2015. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of approaching the Princ...
Vinay Kumar Shet Vs. Swapna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Family Judge, Coimbatore dated 24.2.2016 made in HMOP No.952/2015.) S. Manikumar, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree in HMOP No.952/2015 dated 24.2.2016 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore, by which, the marriage between the parties dated 16.5.1994, has been dissolved by a decree for divorce. 2. Questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree, husband has filed the instant appeal, contending inter alia that the Additional Family Court, Coimbatore, ought not to have held that the acts of the appellant had caused mental agony and suffering to the respondent, when the same are not substantiated by any documentary evidence. 3. It is also submitted that the Additional Family Court has not given valid reasons for granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. Another contention made in this appeal is that there is n...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »