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.
S. Gunasekar Vs. State Bank of India Rep. By its Regional Manager-RBO- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, the action of the 1st respondent bank in declining the sick leave by its order dated 07.06.2016 bearing HR/64 and referring the petitioner to the Medical Officer of the Bank through his letter dated 15.06.2016 bearing HR/72 and in turn the action of the 3rd respondent in referring dated 20.06.2016 coupled with the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 22.06.2016 bearing HR/79 directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to constitute the Medical Board in terms of the Human Resources Handbook issued by the Corporate Centre, Mumbai or refer the petitioner to the Medical Board available in the Government General Hospital, Chennai (Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital or Stanley Medical College General Hospital or kilpauk Medical College General Hospital or Royapettah Government Ho...
Angammal Vs. State represented by Madurai District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai, in S.C.No.129 of 2007 dated 24.04.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The respondents 2 to 10 were the accused in S.C.No.129/2007 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.III, Madurai. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 342 and 304(ii) IPC against all the accused, in addition, Section 325 IPC against the 1st accused and 325 read with Section 34 IPC(2 counts) against the accused Nos.2 to 8 and lastly under Section 354 IPCagainst the accused 6 to 9. By judgment dated 24.04.2012, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges. The appellant is an injured victim. She was P.W.1 in the case. Aggrieved over the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 10, the appellant has come up with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The...
Sree Venkateswara Engineering Corporation and Others Vs. ICICI Bank Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the order of this Court dated 14-09-2006 made in C.S.No.785 of 1990.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-09-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.785 of 1990. 2. The appellant herein, as plaintiff, has instituted C.S.No.785 of 1990 on the file of this Court praying to pass a money decree in favour of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.29,14,952/-(Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Fourteen thousand Nine hundred fifty two only) wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. 3. The nubble of the averments made in the plaint are that one Andhra Civil Construction, a partnership firm has secured a contract for constructing North Brake Waters for Tuticorin Harbour Project under an agreement dated 21-10-1970. A portion of the work is valued at Rs.1.07 Crores and an agre...
Murali and Others Vs. State through, The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 27.06.2014, made in S.C.No.221 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 8 in S.C.No. 221 2013, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The Trial Court framed as many as five charges, as detailed below. ChargeAccusedPenal Provisions11 to 8120-B IPC21 to 8147 IPC31 to 8148 IPC41 to 8307 IPC51 to 8302 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 27.06.2014, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- AccusedSection of LawSentenceFine amount1120-B IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life. 147 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year 148 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 307 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fif...
Ezra Sargunam Vs. D. Janardhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu dated 28.04.2008 made in C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 confirming the order of the Lower Court dated 19.06.2003 made in I.A.No.820 of 2002 in O.S.No.29 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram dismissing the application to set aside the exparte decree.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the order passed in I.A.No.820 of 2002 in O.S.No.29 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 1995 for permanent injunction. 3. The defendant filed his written statement and was contesting the suit. While so, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court and an exparte decree was passed against him on 21.12.1998. Thereaf...
The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.669 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) (Special District Court), Krishnagiri.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Quantum of compensation of Rs.11,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till realisation, is the challenge in this appeal, and in particular, to the determination of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. 2. Though the wife of the deceased claimed that the deceased, aged 38 years, was running a Dhaba, in his daughter's name, Nandhini Dhaba and earned Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. 3. In Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundar...
B. Manimaran and Others Vs. The Madurai Kamarajar University, represen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.15759 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to readmit the petitioner namely Manimaran (Roll No.1627/2014) in the 2nd respondent college in III year B.A. Economics Course in the Academic year (2016-2017) at Vivekanantha College Thiruvedagam (West) Cholavandhan Madurai District. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.15760 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to readmit the petitioner namely K.Pasupathi (Roll No.903/2014) in the 2nd respondent college in III year B.Sc. Computer Science in the Academic year (2016-2017) at Vivekanantha College Thiruvedagam (West) Cholavandhan Madurai District. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.15761 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to readmit the petitioner ...
S. Shriram and Another Vs. The State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Trial Court to pass orders in CMP.No.1026 of 2016 in C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.) 1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the trial Court to pass orders in CMP.No.1026 of 2016 in C.C.No.39 of 2009. 2. It is seen that the petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.39 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 r/w 114 IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that one S.Parimalam was holding deposit of a sum of Rs.41,867/- in the Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyampatti Branch. A1 to A4, in collusion with the petitioners, had encashed the deposit amount, by setting up an impersonator (Deepa A2) for Parimalam. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been promoted and they are working as Senior Managers in the bank and t...
Kaluthaipandi Vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, U ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 30.12.2013, made in S.C.No.30 of 2012, by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge (PCR), Madurai.) 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge (PCR), Madurai. There were two other accused by name Chinnasamy and Ramar. The trial Court framed as many as five charges against them as detailed below: Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.1A13(1)(x) of SC/AT Act2A1302 r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act3A2 and A3302 r/w 34 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) ofSC/ST Act4A1307 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/STAct5A2 and A3307 r/w 34 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) ofSC/ST Act. 2. By judgment dated 30.12.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused 2 and 3 from both the charges, however, convicted the appellant/A1 alone for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years...
S. Arumugham Vs. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court - I), Salem in Crl.Appeal No.36 of 2009 reversing the Judgment dated 16.04.2009 in STC No.3060 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant / Respondent / Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 30.07.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009 passed by the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem in reversing the Judgment dated 16.04.2009 in STC No.3060 of 2006 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem. 3. It comes to be known that the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (FTC No.I), Salem in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009 preferred by the Respondent / Accused (As an Appellant) on 30.07.2009 passed a Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »