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.
Mohamed Salim Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Madurai and An ...
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.53 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners is concerned.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in C.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners is concerned. 2. As this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, 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 This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points available with the petitioner before the Trial Court. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the presence of the petitioner bef...
Thirumalai and Others Vs. T. Dhanalakshmi
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 D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records pertaining to the D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is seen that Dhanalakshmi had married Thirumalai on 01.11.1998 and it is alleged by Dhanalakshmi that she has been subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2001 for divorce, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, aggrieved by which, the 1st petitioner has preferred an appeal. While so, Dhanalakshmi has moved the Trial Court under the D.V.Act for various relief. It is further alleged by Dhanalakshmi...
C. Selvamani and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein to commence the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Sub inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent herein to commence the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Sub inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari. 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.27 of 2016 has been completed and the same has been closed as mistake of fact on 28.01.2016 itself. RCS notice has also been served on the petitioner and a copy of the closure report has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petitio...
M/s. Sultan and Company rep by its Managing Partner K.K. Hussain, Coch ...
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 Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the bid application submitted by the petitioner for Lot No.XIV on 24.02.2016 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the bid application submitted by him he petitioner for Lot No.XIV on 24.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has not followed the guidelines issued by the G.O.(MS)No.390 Finance (BPE) Department dated 27.09.2013. A detailed counter has been filed. In the counter, it is very clearly stated that even on the date of opening of the tender it is stated th...
S. Indiragandhi Vs. The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to file a final report accordance with law pending investigation in Crime No.151 of 2013 on the file of the respondent.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent to file a final report accordance with law pending investigation in Crime No.151 of 2013 on the file of the respondent. 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.151 of 2013 has been completed and the same has been closed as action dropped on 30.06.2013 itself. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Murugan and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police S ...
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 and quash the proceedings in Crime No.86 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.86 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that the property in question belongs to her son and that these petitioners had illegally encroached in the property and put up a hut. It is further alleged by the defacto complainant that these petitioners have created forged documents, as if the defacto complainant's son had given the property on lease to them. 4. On reading of the FIR, it is seen that there are prima facie materials for the investigation to go on. Under such circumstances, it is too premature for this Court to interfer...
Mariappa Thevar Vs. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, ...
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 Mandamus to direct the respondents to assign the land in town Survey Number in T.S.No.850 to an extent of 187.51 Sq.ft within which western Peacock Mandabam is situated to Dindigul District, Palani Town, East Maravar Street, Uravinmurai and give patta by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2015 within the stipulated time and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petitionfor a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to assign the land in town Survey Number in T.S.No.850 to an extent of 187.51 Sq.ft within which western Peacock Mandabam is situated to Dindigul District, Palani Town, East Maravar Street, Uravinmurai and give patta by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2015. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional ...
G. Lakshmi Vs. The General Manager, Aavin, A.1301, Madurai District Co ...
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 respondent to receive the petitioner's tender form without the Solvency Certificate and to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction to be conducted for that purpose and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed....
Kathirvel Rethinam and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Polic ...
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 First Information Report pertaining to the case in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.) 1. This petition has been filedto call for the First Information Report pertaining to the case in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2016 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, challenging which, the petitioners/A1 to A4 are before this Court. 4. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she got married to Kathirvel Rethinam (A1) on 11.06.2009 and thereafter, their marriage ran into rough weath...
J. Kader Mohamed Rafi Vs. The Commissioner, Chennai and Others
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 order made by the first petitioner in RP.145/2015/B2 dated 12.01.2016 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1274/2014-2/A1 dated 18.02.2016 and the impugned notification issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.65/2016/A4 dated 26.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal 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 order made by the first petitioner in RP.145/2015/B2 dated 12.01.2016 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1274/2014-2/A1 dated 18.02.2016 and the impugned notification issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.65/2016/A4 dated 26.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal.2. Heard the lear...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »