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.
G. Nithyakalyani Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Anot ...
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 a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 21.03.2016 and investigate the same and file a final report within the period specified by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 21.03.2016 and investigate the same and file a final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 21.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.12 of 2016 on 17.04.2016 for offences under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that nothing survives for adjudication in this...
M. Santhana Krishnan and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madur ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents not to harass these petitioners and their family members in the guise of enquiry in connection with the case in which petitioners' brother was arrayed as accused on the file of the control of the juridication of 1st and 2nd respondent police officials limit and issue direction to the respondents to take necessary action based on the representation sent by the petitioners on 21.3.2016.) 1. These petitions have been filed to direct the respondents not to harass these petitioners and their family members in the guise of enquiry in connection with the case in which petitioners' brother was arrayed as accused on the file of the control of the jurisdication of 1st and 2nd respondent police officials limit and issue direction to the respondents to take necessary action based on the representation sent by the petitioners on 21.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners...
Amalan Mosess Vs. The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the investigastion in connection with Crime No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sayarpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District to be withdrawn and transferred to any other agency more particularly to the Deputy Superintendent of police, CBCID, Thoothukudi Range, Thoothukudi District forthwith.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the investigation in connection with Crime No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sayarpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District to be withdrawn and transferred to any other agency more particularly to the Deputy Superintendent of police, CBCID, Thoothukudi Range, Thoothukudi District forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.13 of 2010 has been completed and action was dropped as early as 28.12.2012. A copy of the ...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, Siv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 and made in MCOP.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Pattukottai.) 1. When the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is taken up for hearing on 21.04.2016, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption for dismissal. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs....
P. Sathya Vs. Kaviarasu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: The Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw the HMOP.No.159 0f 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Perambalur and transfer the same to the file of Sub Court, Karur.) 1. The Transfer CMP is filed to withdraw HMOP.No.159 0f 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Perambalur and transfer the same to the file of Sub Court, Karur. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that an ex parte decree was passed in HMOP.No.159 of 2015 on 07.04.2016. 3. In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Transfer CMP. Hence, the Transfer CMP is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
Sadaiyandi Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Karur and Anothe ...
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 a case for alleged offences punishable u/s.427 294(b) 506(i) of IPC on the basis of the petitioners complaint dated 25.3.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for alleged offences punishable u/s.427 294(b) 506(i) of IPC on the basis of the petitioners complaint dated 25.3.2016. 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 25.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 02.04.2016. 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 appropriate forum in the manner known...
Oyyammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to register the complaint based on the representation dated 23.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to register the complaint based on the representation dated 23.03.2016. 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 23.03.2016, given by the petitioner, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed on 14.04.2016. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. The respondent police is directed to send a copy of the Closure Report to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order....
Raja Mohammed and Another 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 file final report in Crime No.661 of 2015 on the fie of the 2nd respondent within a period fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to file final report in Crime No.661 of 2015 on the fie of the 2nd 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 has been completed and a closure report has already been filed on 04.10.2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai. A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
M/s. P and C Constructions (P) Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Mun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(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 passed by the respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.JnS2/AGFN/2nd VWSS/2011 dated 21.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass further orders as this 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 passed by the respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.JnS2/AGFN/2nd VWSS/2011 dated 21.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. After some elaborate arguments, the petitioner would point out that even as per the counter filed by the second respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode, the actual amount of Excise duty exemption claimed in respect of supply of pipes would come only to the tune of Rs.63,41,294/-. The...
J. Muthukrishnan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice in Letter No. R5/1097/97/Relief GO 115/2013 dated 05.07.2013 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to issue sale deed to the petitioner for his allotted ready built house No. MIG B-27 TNHB Colony Sankaraperi Thoothukudi on payment of difference in land cost without any interest within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »