Chennai Court January 2017 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.
Ravi Vs. The State rep. By its Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.05.2011 made in C.A.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.II, Gobichettipalayam confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 01.02.2010 made in C.C.No.273 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.) Judgment: 1. The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 24.05.2011 made in C.A.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.II, Gobichettipalayam confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 01.02.2010 made in C.C.No.273 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam. 2. The sole accused in C.C.No.273 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam is the revision petitioner herein. He stood cha...
R. Balakrishnan Vs. The State rep. by Secretary to Government, Home De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.B[1]/2789/13 dated 02.05.2013 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monitory and service benefits.) Order: 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was formerly Inspector of Police, challenging the order of removal of service passed by the fifth respondent, has filed this writ petition. The petitioner joined services of Tamil Nadu Police in 28.10.1987 as Sub Inspector of Police and claims that he has rendered sincere and blemish less service to the satisfaction of the superior officers. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police, during the year 2003 and worked in that capacity in various places and was working at Thirukalur Police Station, Thiruvarur District. 3. The pe...
N. Queen Vs. The State, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records of the second respondent, in his proceedings Memo No.657/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 9.7.2016, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Narayanababu, aged about 36 years, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this court and to set him at liberty, forthwith.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Narayanababu, aged about 36 years, son of Viswanathan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order, No.657/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 9.7.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabb...
Senthil Kumar Vs. represented by Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed in S.C.No.107 of 2013, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused. 2. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.107 of 2013 dated 05.08.2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, ordering the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. and also to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The accused stood charged on the allegations that at 9.05p.m. on 15.08.2012, at a Channel called Raja Vaikkal, Nagarajapuram, Vedappaty Villlage,...
Muniammal Vs. Subaramanian and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal No.153 of 2011 filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2010 made in A.S.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 made in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur. Second Appeal No.154 of 2011 filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2010 made in Cross Appeal No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 made in O.S.No.61 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.). Common Judgment S.A.No.153/2011: 1. Challenge in this appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, reversing the ju...
Venkatrayalu and Another Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.) 1. Challenge in this Appeal is made by the defendants 8 and 9 against the Judgment and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet. 2. Suit for partition. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows: The suit ''B'' schedule properties originally belonged to the first defendant and his father Ranga Reddiar as their joint family properties. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the seventh defendant are the daughte...
Sheik Mohammed Nizar Vs. The Authorised Officer Axis Bank Limited and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent pertaiing to the notice dated 17/12/2016, issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and consequential action under Section 13 (4) read with Rules 8 (1) and 9 of the SARFAESI Act, in respect of the petition mentioned property bearing land and building comprised in Survey Nos.46/2A1A1, 46/2A1A2, 46/2A1A3 and 46/2A1A4 (as per Patta Nos.1700, 1701, 1702, 1703 of No.46, Mathur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District situated in 200 ft inner ring road, Madhavaram, ad measuring a total extent of 204 cents (88740 Sq.ft) with equal undivided share thereto absolutely owned and possessed by the petitioner and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Guarantor, has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the notice, dated 17/12/2016, issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the consequential not...
Asokan and Another Vs. The State, Salem District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Revision preferred under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgement dated 24.11.2010 made in C.A.No.26 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem, confirming the judgment dated 28.01.2009 made in C.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari.) Order: 1. A1 to A3 in C.C.No.95 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Sangagiri are the petitioners herein. Totally there are four accused. All the accused stood charged for an offence under Section 392 IPC. By judgment dated 28.01.2009, the trial court, convicted A1 and A2 under Section 392 r/w. 75 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and convicted A3 and A4 under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple impr...
Gayathri Kitchens (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Director, R. Preetha, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to duly and favourably consider the petitioner's letter dated 19/6/2016 offering to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty lakhs only) as one time settlement.) Order: S. Manikumar, J. 1. Guarantor, has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Indian Bank/respondent, Chennai, to favourably consider a letter, dated 19/6/2016, offering a payment of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, as one time settlement. 2. Record of proceeding shows that when the matter came on 13/7/2016, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.M.P.No.20583 of 2016 in W.P.No.24040 of 2016, while ordering notice to the respondent Bank, returnable in four weeks, granted interim stay of the sale of the assets, scheduled, on 15/7/2016, at 11.00 a.m., to 12.00 Noon, by e-auction mode, for a period of eight weeks, subject to the condition that the writ petitioner deposits a su...
B. Rajarajeshwari Vs. The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal II ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the order passed in M.A.SR.No.4870 of 2016 in O.A.No.219 of 2014 dated 21/6/2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to withdraw the recovery certificate issued in D.R.C.No.122 of 2016, dated 2/2/2016, thereby directing it to make fresh determination.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner has availed Over Draft facility of Rs.15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) from Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Due to financial distress, she could not repay the loan amount. After her loan account was classified as NPA, she had paid Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only), on 28.11.2011. Thereafter, on 08.02.2012, she moved an application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in S.A.No.30 of 2012, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. An interim order was passed, directing the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »