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.
S. Rajesh @ Vijaya Rajesh Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to file a charge sheet in FIR in Crime No.60 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to file a charge sheet in FIR in Crime No.60 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the investigation in Crime No.60 of 2014 is almost completed and after getting opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the same will be filed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
A. Abdul Majeed Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and to take necessary action against the Respondents 3 to 10.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and to take necessary action against the Respondents 3 to 10. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the petitioner and the opposite parties have arrived at a compromise and a copy of compromise affidavit has also been filed before this Court. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, this matter has come up for hearing under the caption "For Clarification" at the instance of the respondents. 2. The only clarification sought by the respondents was pursuant to the order of stay passed by this Court on 17.03.2016, based on which, the petitioner issued a contempt notice seeking for stoppage of construction. Whereas, the petitioner clearly stated that he has not sought for any stoppage of construction as the order of stay does not pertain to any construction. The above statement is recorded. 3. Accordingly, the matter stands clarified....
N. Ramya Vs. The Territory Manager (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(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 first respondent in his proceedings TNJ:LPG:Thiruvarmbur dated 16.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal 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 first respondent in his proceedings TNJ:LPG:Thiruvarmbur dated 16.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal. 2. The only point which has been raised by the petitioner, who was a successful candidate and awarded highest mark, is that her case has been denied on the ground that the experience certificate produced by her was found to be false, however, without any notice. 3. First of all, according to the petitioner, the experience certificate is not found to be bogus and it is a ...
R.P.S. Rajini Balaguru Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to give police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to give police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a civil Court decree in O.S.No.868 of 2003 dated 11.01.2008 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town in his favour, despite which, the 3rd respondent is causing trouble to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has given a complaint to the respondent police by post. 4. Under such circumstances, the petitio...
Ramu Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to transfer the investigation of Crime No.18 of 2016 dated 26.01.2016 on the file of the Tiruppachethi Police Station from the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent or any other competent officer.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation of Crime No.18 of 2016 dated 26.01.2016 on the file of the Tiruppachethi Police Station from the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent or any other competent officer. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations in the FIR and the fact that the case is of the year 2016, this is not a fit case to transfer the investigation prematurely. However, the 1st respondent is directed to monitor the investigation in Crime No.18 of 2016 and the respondent police shall expedite the investigation and expeditiously file a final report. 4. With the above obs...
P. Nagarajan Vs. P. Vijayaragavan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Fast Track Court No. I (Magisterial Level), Madurai to expedite the trial in S.T.C.No. 239 of 2014 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court No. I (Magisterial Level), Madurai District.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the learned Fast Track Court No. I (Magisterial Level), Madurai to expedite the trial in S.T.C.No. 239 of 2014 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court No. I (Magisterial Level), Madurai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, the learned Fast Track Court No. I (Magisterial Level), Madurai is directed to complete the trial of the case in S.T.C.No.239 of 2014 within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
M. Senthil Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner's maternal Aunt Mrs. Theivanai.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner's maternal Aunt Mrs.Theivanai. 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 Theivanai, a case in Crime No.210 of 2016 has been registered against this petitioner. 3. Under such circumstances, once a regular FIR has been registered, the question of 'not to harass' will not arise, because the expression 'harassment' is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria. If a 'not to harass order is passed in this case, where a regular...
R. Venkateswaran Vs. M. Latha and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable order dated 04.12.2014, made in I.A.No.422 of 2013 in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.) This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order dated 04.12.2014, made in I.A.No.422 of 2013 in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The petitioner is the respondent/husband in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010 and the first respondent/wife is the plaintiff in the said petition. The first respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed an application in I.A.No.422 of 2013, for interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month for herself and for the minor daughter, second respondent. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is working as a Scientist C in Defence Research and Development Organizatio...
Palaniyappan Vs. State Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide police protection to the petitioner for putting up constructions in S.No.1090/4 in Patta No.896 in Baganatham Village, Gundampatti, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide police protection to the petitioner for putting up constructions in S.No.1090/4 in Patta No.896 in Baganatham Village, Gundampatti, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a Civil Court decree in his favour, despite which, the opposite parties are not permitting him to put up a construction in his property, which is going to expire on 31.01.2017. In this regard, the petitioner has lodged a complaint, which is under enquiry in CSR No.79 of 2016 by the responde...