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.
Murugan Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint of one Lakshmi.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint of one Lakshmi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
M. Saravanan Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to issue a direction directing the respondents 1 to 8 to take appropriate action against the respondents 9 and 10 for illegally parting with Karuppucode Shenbaga Kuthan Kandan Sastha Temples property as well as excommunicating the families including the petitioner's family members from social gathering with the villagers of the Karuppucode village and further ensure the petitioner and other family members right to worship Karuppucode Shenbaga Kuthan Kandan Sastha Temples based on his representation dated 05.03.2016.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Jinnah Mohamed, the Sub-inspector of Police attached to the Eraniel Station is present before this Court. As per the instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the police complaint given by the petitioner was enquired into and in that enquiry, the respondents 9 and 10 were also present....
Ammaiyappan @ Babu Vs. R.S. Ganageswari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC praying to withdraw the case in HMOP.No.161 of 2014 pending on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputur and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Srivilliputur, to be tried along with HMOP.No.6 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Srivilliputur. ) 1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw and transfer the case in HMOP.No.161 of 2014 pending on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputur to Family Court, Srivilliputur, to be tried along with HMOP.No.6 of 2014. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.03.2011. Due to the dispute, both are living separately. Originally, the respondent filed HMOP.No.40 of 2012, before the Principal Sub Court, Kovilpatti, for restitution of Conjugal rights. The petitioner filed HMOP.No.40 of 2012, on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputur, for divorce. The petitioner filed ...
S. Panchavarnam Vs. The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to secure the accused in Cr.No.90 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in the nature and circumstances of the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to secure the accused in Cr.No.90 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in the nature and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent police have registered an FIR in Crime No.190 of 2016 on 09.02.2016 for offences under Sections 294(B), 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. While so, the petitioner has filed the present petition to arrest the accused. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued, inasmuch as it is the discretion of the Investigating Officer either ...
V. Ananda Perumal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the complaint dated 09.03.2016 preferred by a petitioner and to take action against the accused persons in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the complaint dated 09.03.2016 preferred by a petitioner and to take action against the accused persons in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 09.03.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 09.03.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with l...
N. Jeyaseelan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.01.2016 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.01.2016 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint dated 02.01.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 02.01.2016. A copy of the Closure Report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the a...
M. Manoj @ Manojkumar Vs. State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in pertaining to the case in Crime No.413 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same to the petitioner alone.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in pertaining to the case in Crime No.413 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.413 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 325 and 506(ii) IPC, has been registered against the petitioner/A4. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/A4 and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent police, namely, S.Thilakar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Koodal Puthur Police Sta...
The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police XIIth Battalion, Manimuthar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Section 114 CPC under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Of CPC against the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by this Court made in CMA(MD).No.569 of 2012.)1. The Review Application is filed to reconsider the order, dated 03.09.2012 passed by this Court, in CMA(MD).No.569 of 2012.2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners made his submissions on the merits of the matter. But, he has not pointed out any error in the order sought to be reviewed. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners re-arguing the matter on merits without pointing out any error on the face of the record. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the learned Government Advocate tries to re argue the matter on merits.4. In view of the fact that no e...
P. Ramu Vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Chen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned rules communicated by the 3rd respondent in ROC 561 of 2006 dated 24.07.2006 and quash the same and forbearing I to III respondents from exercising enrolment and consequently direct the 4th respondent to take charge of enrolment of advocates as per section 58(1) of Advocates' Act, 1961.) N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. This case is only a tip of an iceberg, which reveals how full-time salaried employees/staff are working and simultaneously undergoing Law Degree Course elsewhere. The petitioner herein, is a person, who was working as a full-time Government employee, i.e, as a Junior Engineer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Thanjavur, from 17.03.1966 to 31.10.2001 and who was able to obtain a law degree, as if he had undergone the course from 1998-2001, as a regular student in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law, Bangal...
Palanisamy and Another Vs. State represented by The Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioner and their family members under the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioners and their family members under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by one Lakhsmi against these petitioners-, the respondent police conducted an enquiry in CSR No.42 of 2016 and the same has been closed on 26.03.2016. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »