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. Bose Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to consider the representation and direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural programme Adal Padal and drama on 05.04.2016 in the event of festival of Sri Muthalamman and Sri Pattalamman Temple at Sitharkal Natham Village, Malliyampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul without causing any disturbance to public order.) This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to consider the representation and direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural programme Adal Padal and drama on 05.04.2016 in the event of festival of Sri Muthalamman and Sri Pattalamman Temple at Sitharkal Natham Village, Malliyampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul without causing any disturbance to public order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct Adal Padal on 05.04.2016 in connection with a festival of Sri ...
Dhiran Vs. State Represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai to pass order on the bail petition filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.120 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai to pass order on the bail petition filed by the petitioner on the same day of surrender in Crime No.120 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v)a of SC/ST Act in Crime No.120 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer. 3. Learned Government ...
R. Banumathi and Another Vs. K. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur, in I.A.No.604 of 2010 in O.S.No.276 of 2010, dated 06.09.2010.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 06.09.2010, made in I.A.No.604 of 2010 in O.S.No.276 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Karur. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit in O.S.No.276 of 2010, to declare that they have the easementary rights to periodical proper maintenance such as white washing, plastering and repairing the outer side of the western side wall of the suit properties and injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the rights of the respondents for periodical maintenance of western wall. 3. The respondents filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner was app...
R. Janakiraman Vs. S. Uma Rani and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable order dated 07.09.2015 made in I.A.No.187 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 by the learned VI-Additional District Judge, Madurai.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the fair and executable order dated 07.09.2015 made in I.A.No.187 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 by the learned VI- Additional District Judge, Madurai. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2011, for declaration of title based on the Will dated 24.04.1995, recovery of possession and partition of 1/5th share of gold ornaments and for permanent injunction. The respondents filed written statement and two additional written statements and contesting the suit. At the time of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 under Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. to direct the respondents/defendants to begin...
V. Karnan Vs. T. Vivekanandhan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order, dated 28.08.2015, made in I.A.No.128 of 2014 in unnumbered First Appeal on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 28.08.2015 made in I.A.No.128 of 2014 in unnumbered First Appeal on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur. 2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the second respondent is the second defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The first respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.130 of 2010, for declaration and recovery of the suit property from the revision petitioner and the second respondent. The said Suit was decreed exparte on 04.07.2014. The revision petitioner has filed first appeal, along with the application in I.A.No.128 of 2014 to condone the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner, ...
Yogesh Dutt Vs. The State of Tamilnadu through Thiru S. Krishnamoorthy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner.) This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner. 2. The minimum facts that are required for adjudicating this petition, are as follows: i) The petitioner / A2 does business in the name and style of Pesticide India Industries Limited and is a distributor of the insecticides manufactured by the 1st accused. ii) On 21.08.2007, the complainant inspected the shop of the 4th accused, who is a retailer and took samples of an insecticide in terms of Section 22 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1968) and sent one sampl...
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and Others Vs ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orders dated 26.03.2012 and 27.08.2012 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.13456 of 2011 and 8530 of 2012 on the file of this Court.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Challenge in these two Writ Appeals is to the Orders dated 26.03.2012 and 27.08.2012 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.13456 of 2011 and 8530 of 2012. 2. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and a Common Judgment is being passed. 3. The case of the respondent in W.A.(MD).No.489 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent school is a recognized private aided primary school. Totally, 250 students were studying and seven posts were sanctioned. On account of voluntary retirement of erstwhile Headmaster - S.Swamy, on 01.09.2009, the post of Headmaster fell vacant and in the said vacancy, one Sudha, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, was promoted and placed, with effect from 04.01.2010 a...
Indirakumar and Others Vs. State through The Inspector of Police and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in future by considering the petitioners' representation dated 13.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in future by considering the petitioners' representation dated 13.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the complaint given by one Varadarajan against these petitioners, petition enquiry is pending in CSR No.57 of 2016. 4. The petitioners are directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, they shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register an FIR and this order shall not be a s...
Mahesh Vs. The Inspector General of Police, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to 1 to 4 herein to issue suitable orders to the 5th respondent herein not to harass the petitioner and to take suitable action on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 07.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to 1 to 4 herein to issue suitable orders to the 5th respondent herein not to harass the petitioner and to take suitable action on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 07.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, who would submit that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is pending against this petitioner and the same was not closed. 3. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed....
Rajagopal Vs. The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 27.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 279 and 304(a) IPC in C.C.No.179 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 on various dates and the accused did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case, the accused filed an application C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recaIl of the prosecution witnesses, which was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.01.2016, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »