Chennai Madurai Court April 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.
N.T. Manibaba Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirune ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case based on the complaint dated 24.09.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case based on the complaint dated 24.09.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending 3. In view of the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent in person and co-operate in the enquiry. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P and othe...
K.R. Ramesh Babu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 26.3.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 26.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 26.03.2016, it essentially appears to be a boundary dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party and in order to give criminal colour to it, the petitioner has alleged that the opposite party had used abusive language and threatened him. Under such circumstances, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Karthikeyan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere the Civil Dispute in O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District and direct the 1st respondent to take necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere the Civil Dispute in O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District and direct the 1st respondent to take necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
S. Parthasarathy Vs. The Registrar General, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to repair the lift in Paramakudi Court building at the earliest and to construct the ramp to the two floors in the Court building of the Paramakudi Court campus, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, a practicing Advocate and claiming himself to be espousing the grievances of the differently abled persons in Paramakudi District, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, to repair the lift, in the Combined Court Building at Paramakudi, at the earliest, and to construct ramps in the first and the second floors. 2. Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner has submitted that though there are many differently abled persons, litigants, including Advocates, who attend the Courts located in the ground, plus two floors, in the Combined Court Building, at Paramakudi, in R...
T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam and Others Vs. S. Mohammed Abdulla Sait and othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai dated 25.10.2013 made in A.S.No.18 of 2013 and in A.S.No.20 of 2013 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 10.04.2013 made in O.S.No.483 of 2011. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai dated 25.10.2013 made in A.S.No.19 of 2013 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 10.04.2013 made in O.S.No.427 of 2011.) 1. Mohammed Abdullah Sait filed a suit in O.S.No.483/2011 on the file of the trial court (Court of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai) against Late T.M.V.N.Sahasranamam for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule ...
S. Sivakumar Vs. S. Senthil Kumar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records connected with the case in Crime No.133 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records connected with the case in Crime No.133 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.133 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of TNWH Act on the file of the 1st respondent police, has been registered against the petitioners/accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation...
S. Kannan Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the second respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 457 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 457 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that during enquiry, the petitioner has given a signed statement and has also affixed his left thumb impression, in which, he has expressed his desire to resolve the dispute through Court. In view of the above, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to regist...
S. Kalimuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the representation dated 4.4.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the representation dated 4.4.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that a case in Crime No.109 of 2016 under Section 366(A) IPC has been registered and this petitioner has been called only for enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. However, this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against arrest, if he is involved in any cognizable offence. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is dis...
Abuthahir Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 23.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 23.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 23.02.2016, it is seen that the petitioner has done business with the opposite party and it is alleged that the opposite party had not paid him the returns. Even in the complaint the petitioner has stated that the opposite party has returned Rs.49,000/-, Rs,30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on various dates. Since it essentially appears to be a dispute between the partners, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to w...
Ben Joseph Sathish Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 4 and their men or agents from drawing HT Line across the petitioner's property in S.No.191/1 and 191/2 with a total extent of 5.68 acres at Veppankulam, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, except by due proess of law.) 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already withdrawn the civil suit in O.S.No.176 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. Now, he would contend that he has raised objection regarding drawing HT line across the petitioner's property. On this aspect, he would also bring to the notice of this Court regarding W.P.(MD).No.18312 of 2015 dated 03.03.2016. 2. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that as per the afore-said judgment, the first respondent is the competent authority to look into the issue in quest...