Chennai Madurai Court March 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.
S. Senthilkumar Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.2829 of 2014 in Crime No.136 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records and quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.2829 of 2014 in Crime No.136 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. 2. As this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2829 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. Permission is granted. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be is...
M. Sarfudeen and Others Vs. Ushaman Ali
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 against the order passed in GWOP.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tirchirapalli, dated 30.04.2015.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order passed in GWOP.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tirchirapalli, dated 30.04.2015. 2. The appellants are respondents and the respondent is petitioner in GWOP.No.19 of 2014. 3. The respondent filed said GWOP for custody of minor son Ashwaq. The first appellant is father in law of respondent and the second appellant is brother in law, son of first appellant, and the third appellant is wife of second appellant. The respondent is father and natural guardian of minor son. 4. The facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The respondent married first appellant's daughter Jerina Begum on 10.04.2006 as per Islamic Customs and Rites. After marriage, they were living in respondent's hous...
Nagaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to withdraw the case in Crime No.288 of 2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to transfer the same to any other investigating agency.) 1. This petition has been filedto withdraw the case in Crime No.288 of 2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to transfer the same to any other investigating agency 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that charge sheet has already been filed in this case in Crime No.288 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi and the same has not yet been taken on file. 3. It is seen that the petitioner is an accused in this case. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the same is dismissed....
Pichaiya Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to forthwith shift the Wind Mill Unit of the 6th respondent being erected and commissioned in S.No.96, situated at Ayyanarkulam Village, Alangulam, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to forthwith shift the Wind Mill Unit of the sixth respondent being erected and commissioned in S.No.96, situated at Ayyanarkulam Village, Alangulam, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli. 2. According to the petitioner, he owns the land measuring to an extent 0.49.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No.98/2B situated at Ayyanarkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner has got dwelling house where he lives along with his family. There is also a well and a deep borewell and a pumpset motor with electricity service connection. Adjoining his dwelling house, there is a...
P. Lakshmi Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent under Sections 417, 376 and 313 IPC and quash the same as against this petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1st respondent under Sections 417, 376 and 313 IPC and quash the same as against this petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel for R2. 3. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she and one Saravanakumar/A1 were in love with each other and that on the promise of marrying her, A1 had sexual intercourse with her, on account of which, the defacto complainant became pregnant. It is further alleged by the defacto complainant that she was taken by A1 and other accused to Virudhunagar Kalidoss Hospital...
M. Aundivel and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Cha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 by their resolution No.1 dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 by their resolution No.1 dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2, 4 to 9 and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. After some elaborate arguments, a consensus is arrived at by all the parties to the effect that both the petitioners as well as the 10th respondent who claims to represent another community, also concede that the land belo...
Dr. S. Harshavarthan Vs. S. Karpagavalli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, r/w. Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2014, passed in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013 by the learned District Judge, Sivagangai District, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2013, passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.149 and 155 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.) 1. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2014, passed in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013 by the learned District Judge, Sivagangai District, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2013, passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.149 and 155 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court heard both the H.M.O.Ps. and H.M.C.M.As. together and disposed the same by a common order and judgment. The parties in both the appeals are one and the same and issue is ...
Baluchamy and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theni ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C. No.98 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in C.C. No.98 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and quash the same. 2. As this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.98 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 3. Permission is granted. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points available with the petitioners before the Trial Court. 4. At this juncture, though no miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners, yet learned counsel for the petition...
R. Karthikeyan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Deve ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.5343 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner Society's representation dated 19.09.2015 for the purpose of returning the property documents to 9 members of the petitioner's Society who had repaid the entire loan with interest towards their housing loans and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Common Order 1. Even as per the resolution, the petitioner was authorized to file the writ petitions only after getting permission from the Government. However, the present writ petitions have been filed without getting permission from the Government and therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these writ petitions and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, these writ petitions ...
Rengasamy and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Statio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Crime No.106 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police dated 07.06.2010.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in Crime No.106 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police dated 07.06.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.106 of 2010 has been completed and a charge sheet has also been filed in this case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, which was taken on file in C.C.No.19 of 2016. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »