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.
Alex C. Joseph Vs. State by Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to call for the records of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and set aside the order passed by the learned Judge made in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 dated 27.05.2015 and order return of the documents which are seized by the respondent herein concerned in Crime No.RC/12(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Chennai on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai to the custody of the petitioner herein.) 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 27.05.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 (in RC.12(A)/2013-CBI/ACB) passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 2.The Learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 in RC.12(A)/2013-CBI/ACB, at paragraph 8, had observed the following: 8.In view of the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the in...
Kannaiyan Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.87 of 2012, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By judgment dated 17.12.2014, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed below:- ad>AccusedConviction under SectionsSentence imposedFine amountSole Accused302 IPCLife ImprisonmentRs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused before this Court with this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case is one Mr.Panneerselvam, who is the younger brother of the accused Kannaiyan. There was dispute between them on dividing their family property. Under the circumstances, on 15.02.2011 by 5.30 p.m. this accused took some R.S.Pathy woods which were lying in front of the house belonging to M...
Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin, through its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8810 of 1996.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The benefit extended to workmen in the appellant/Corporation in the form of incentive payment for extra performance during regular working hours is sought to be included as part of basic wage in terms of the impugned order giving rise to the present appeal. 2. The factual position is really not in dispute. The Appellant Corporation is engaged in the business of transportation of coal by sea and unloading the coal in Tuticorin for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to generate power for supply of electricity. The appointment orders show that the initial appointment as trainees for a period of two months is on stipendiary basis and after confirmation, they are appointed in the appropriate scale of pay with dearness allowance admissible under the Rules of the Appellant Corporation. In addition to these emoluments, the ...
TCR Selvam (JV) Vs. The Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator to arbitrate all the claims and disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of the Agreement No: 51/CN/2010 dated 07.05.2010.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for reference of disputes to arbitration arising from the agreement dated 07.05.2010 for construction of Permanent Divisional Office Building (G+2), Landscaping, Service Road, Compound Wall, etc. including watering and drainage arrangements (PBW Item No.489 of year 2010) at Salem. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that the contract was awarded to the petitioner on 05.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.9,55,59,896/- with the original time period stipulated of 18 months requiring the work to be completed by 05.04.2011. The petitioner claims that however, there was delay in handing ...
M. Arumugam Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thenkasi Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 25.07.2011, made in S.C.No.479 of 2009, by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.479 of 2009 on the file of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 25.07.2011, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosec...
Rev. C.H. Alfed, Corporate Manager of The India Evangelical Lutheran C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to approve the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Correspondent of Concordia Lutheran High School, Kalparapottai, Kanyakumari District, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the abovesaid statement, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department (Inland), Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.01.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.10830 of 2013.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.01.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.10830 of 2013. 2. The respondent was the second highest bidder for fishing right in Nilaiyur Tank, Madurai District, for a period of three years from 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The highest bidder could not deposit 50% of his bid amount on the same day of public auction as per terms and conditions of the tender conditions. His highest bid was cancelled and Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] was forfeited. The respondent was the second highest bidder and therefore, the amount quoted by him i.e., Rs.24,10,000/- was accepted and he was directed by the third appellant to deposit 50% of the quoted amount, i.e., Rs.12,05,000/-. The respondent deposited the said amount on 06.02.2013 and the remaining amoun...
M/s. KMB Marbles and Granites India Private Ltd., and Others Vs. The D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 13.07.2016 and quash the same for the reasons stated above and consequently, direct the second respondent not to proceed under the SARFAESI Act pending disposal of the SARFAESI Application No. 451 of 2015. (Prayer amended vide Court order dated 02.08.2016 in W.M.P(MD)No. 10249 of 2016).) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are collectively engaged in the business of preparing, mining, cutting, polishing, processing, etc., of all types of Marbles, Granites, Laterite, Limestones, etc., and for that purpose, it availed two loans to the tune of Rs.16.89 Crores and Rs.8.50 Crores respectively and on account of vagaries of business conditions, they started incurring loss. Therefore, the second respondent had initiate...
A. Chinnasamy Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to transfer the investigation in Cr.No.12/AC/2010 on the file of the Third Respondent from its file to the Central Bureau of Investigation/ACB/Chennai or any other competent agency.) 1. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made the following endorsement in the memorandum of grounds of the Criminal Original Petition: The Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Shanmugam and Others Vs. The State Represented through the Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-09-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to call for the records and set aside the sentence and conviction imposed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Karur in S.C.No.08 of 2014, dated 11.12.2015 and pass appropriate order.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.08/2014 on the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur. The trial court framed charges under Sections 323, 294(b), 324, 302 r/w 34 and 302 of I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused 1 to 3. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 1.12.2015 convicted the appellants /accused 1 and 3 under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, convicted the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them undergo life imprisonment and imposed fine a sum of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and convicted the appellant No.2 under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo ...