Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: s mahimairaj · Page 1 of about 4 results (0.016 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jul 05 2012

Churchil John Wesley Raj. Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-05-2012

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code(IPC) - Sections 306, 498, 107, 109; Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) - Section 374(2), 313

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.S.Mahimairaj, Adv

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.02.1999, made in S.C.No.185 of 1992 on the file of the I Assistant Sessions Court, Chennai.J U D G...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 25 1991

Hackbridge Hewitic and Easun Ltd. and Others Vs. Provident Fund Inspec ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-25-1991

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1992CriLJ303

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S. Mahimairaj for Mr. K. Jagannatha Rao, Adv.

ORDER1. The petitioners in each of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are accused 1 to 6 in each of C.C. Nos. 306 to 327 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri (now stated...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 12 2002

N. Narayani Sopana Proprietrix Parameswar Cashew Company, Kaliakkavila ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-12-2002

Subject : CivilOther Taxes

Acts : Tamil Nadu Agricultural Product Markets Act, 1959 - Sections 2, 2(1), 3, 4 18, 18(4), 29 and 30

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ294

Advocate for Appellant : S. Mahimairaj, Adv.

A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiffs are the appellants in these second appeals. The suits in O.S. No. 690 and 714 of 1986 were filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the bye-law No. 2 (v) (b)...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Mar 05 2002

A.V. Arockiam and Etc. Vs. Arul Mary Alias Latchumi Devi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-2002

Subject : Family

Acts : Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 8, 10, 18, 23, 27 and 34; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 15 and 24

Reported in : AIR2002Mad435; (2002)2MLJ506

Advocate for Appellant : S. Mahimairaj, Adv. (in O.M.S. No. 24/96) and ;Sheila Jayaprakash and J.C. Padmini (in OMS No. 7/2001)

ORDERK.S. Sampath, J.1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial