Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Padma Vs. The Commissioner of Police Greater, Chennai and Others

Padma vs The Commissioner of Police Greater, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 15, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1192013

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
H.C.P. No. 420 of 2016
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Padma

Respondent

The Commissioner of Police Greater, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: habeas corpus petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue, namely, minor gayathri, who is aged about 16 years, before this court, who is now under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5, and to set her at liberty.)m. jaichandren, j. 1. this habeas corpus petition has been filed, by the mother of the detenue, praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue, namely, minor gayathri, aged about 16 years, who is said to be now under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5, before this court and to set her at liberty. 2. the petitioner has stated that the detenue, who is her younger daughter, had studied upto xth standard. thereafter, she has been working in an export company. while so, she had gone missing, since, 15.02.2016. therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent police, on 16.02.2016. since, no effective steps have been taken by the 2nd respondent police, to trace the detenue, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, before this court. 3. at this stage of the hearing of the habeas corpus petition, the 2nd respondent police had produced the detenue, before this court. the mother of the detenue, is also present. on enquiry, the detenue, namely, gayathri, had expressed her wish to go along with her mother, who is present before this court. 4. in such circumstances, we find it appropriate to close the habeas corpus petition, as no further orders are necessary in the present habeas corpus petition. the detenue, namely, gayathri, is permitted to go along with her mother, as per her wish. the habeas corpus petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue, namely, minor Gayathri, who is aged about 16 years, before this Court, who is now under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5, and to set her at liberty.)

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the mother of the detenue, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue, namely, minor Gayathri, aged about 16 years, who is said to be now under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5, before this Court and to set her at liberty.

2. The petitioner has stated that the detenue, who is her younger daughter, had studied upto Xth standard. Thereafter, she has been working in an export Company. While so, she had gone missing, since, 15.02.2016. Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent police, on 16.02.2016. Since, no effective steps have been taken by the 2nd respondent police, to trace the detenue, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner, before this Court.

3. At this stage of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the 2nd respondent police had produced the detenue, before this Court. The mother of the detenue, is also present. On enquiry, the detenue, namely, Gayathri, had expressed her wish to go along with her mother, who is present before this Court.

4. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to close the Habeas Corpus Petition, as no further orders are necessary in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. The detenue, namely, Gayathri, is permitted to go along with her mother, as per her wish. The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial