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.
Johnson @ Jesu Jhonson Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Tutic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order passed in S.C.No.128 of 2014, dated 20.07.2015, on the on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Tuticorin and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused from all the charges levelled against the petitioner.) B. Gokuldas, J. 1. The appellant herein was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.128 of 2014, for charges under Section 302 and 302 r/w 201 IPC. The learned Trial Judge found that the appellant/accused guilty of the charges under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment; and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the ...
Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government of India, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in R.A.No.44 of 2012 in O.A.No.107 of 2011, dated 17-12-2012 and O.A.No.107 of 2011, dated 26-07-2012 and quash the same and pass further orders.) A. Selvam, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in O.A.No.107 of 2011 dated 26-07-2012 and R.A.No.44 of 2012 in O.A.No.107 of 2011 dated 17-12-2012 and quash the same. 2. The first respondent herein as applicant has filed O.A.No.107 of 2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench wherein the present petitioners have been shown as respondents. 3. In the Original Application, it is prayed to call for records from the ...
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the petitioner on the file of the first respondent and to quash the impugned order in PAN/GIR : AAACT2964A/CORP CIR 3 (1) /2016-17, dated 28.07.2016, and consequently, to direct the first respondent not to initiate any recovery or coercive action for collection of demand for the assessment year 2013-14, till the disposal of Appeal filed by the fourth respondent.) 1. Heard Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel, representing M/s.Subbarayaaiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel, assisted by Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, and the challenge herein is to the order passed by the Assessing Officer/first respondent, directing the petitioner to remit 15% of the demand of tax for the assessment year 2013-14,...
G. Maria Antony Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 08.12.2015, in O.Mu.No. 1216/A5/2015 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same directing the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner Mr.G.Maria Antony as night Watchman in Thiru Iruthaya Higher Secondary School, Mela Ilandhaikulam - 627 951, Tirunelveli District w.e.f. 02.02.2015 with all monetary and other service benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the fourth respondent dated 08.12.2015 passed in O.Mu.No.1216/A5/2015, vide which, the 4th respondent has returned the proposal citing G.O.115 dated 30.05.2007 on the ground that the post of Watchman has to be outsourced and that the ban need not be lifted. The petitioner also sought direction to the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitione...
A.J. Asana Vs. Sittrarasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 (1) r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, dated 22.02.2016 made in Crl.A.No.1 of 2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam, in S.T.C.No.1125 of 2014, dated 17.12.2014.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, in Crl.A.No.1 of 2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam, in S.T.C.No.1125 of 2014, dated 17.12.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C.No.1125 of 2014, has borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the complainant and he issued a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- vide cheque bearing No.334428, dated 21.01.2009. The said cheque was presented by the resp...
Marimuthu Vs. The Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, Dindigu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to refer the daughter of the petitioner before the respondents 2 and 3 and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 to act as per Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to abort the pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner forthwith.) 1. Whether the father / guardian of the minor pregnant daughter can get the foetus of the minor daughter aborted, when the pregnant minor daughter herself is not agreeable for such termination is the question raised in this case; 2. In other words, whether the minor daughter's right to life under Article 21 includes the right to beget a life or create a life is the more pertinent issue raised. Brief Facts: 3. The writ petition seeking to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter, was filed by the father and presented before this Court in person by both the father Marimuthu and mother Selvarani. 3.1. Or...
K. Selvamani Vs. The State of Tamil nadu, rep. by the Principal Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Lr.No.42746/Pol.2/2013-25, dated 30.12.2014 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty as Deputy Superintendent of Police, subject to the result in C.C.No.16 of 2014 dated 21.05.2014 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichirapalli.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Lr.No.42746/Pol.2/2013-25, dated 30.12.2014 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty as Deputy Superintendent of Police, subject to the result in C.C.No.16 of 2014 dated 21.05.2014 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichirapalli. 2. In the a...
Subbaiah and Others Vs. State represented by the Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayers in Crl.O.P.(MD)14067/2016: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 25.07.2016. Crl.O.P.(MD)16023/2016: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No. 15 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent herein registered on 10.08.2016 and to quash the same as against the petitioner herein.) Common order: 1. Who is the accused? Who is the victim? Who is the victim and who is the accused, when allegations and counter allegations are made by both against each other? These are the perplexing questions raised in all the three cases. 2. The petitioner Subbaiah points out Babu, the erstwhile Managing Director of TNSTC, Rengarajan, the successor of Babu and the erstwhile Transport Minister Senthil Balaji and claim that they are the accused persons and he is the victim. But the petitioner Vel Murugan alleges...
Rengasamy Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Sethubavach ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukottai, in S.C.No.249 of 2007 dated 30.01.2008.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.249 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Pattukottai. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC. By judgment dated 30.01.2008, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 341 IPC. 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 f...
Minor Muthuraj and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police Tirunelveli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli to consider the bail application of the petitioners herein on the same day of surrender pertaining to the Crime No.123 of 2016 on the file of the respondent Police.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, to pass orders on the bail petition filed by the petitioners, on the same day of their appearance in Crime No.123 of 2016 on the file of the respondent Police. A case has been registered against the petitioners, who are stated to be aged 17 years , under Section 379 IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused have committed theft of sand by using JCB machine. 4. The learned counsel for the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »