Chennai Madurai Court June 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.
M.L. Kasthuri Sindhu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.06.2016. 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 submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 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. 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 a...
K. Periyagangai Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2014 within the time fixed by this Court after giving opportunity to the respondents 5 to 11 as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2014 within the time fixed by this Court after giving opportunity to the respondents 5 to 11. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property measuring an extent of 54 cents in Survey No.273/4 in Alanganallur Village belongs to one Periyagangai, who is the petitioner's ancestor. The petitioner submits that his father - P.Karuthagangai, who is one of the co-owners in respect of the properties abovementioned, died on 26.03.1989, leaving the petitioner...
A. Syed Abdul Rahim Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 24.02.2016 in accordance with law and on merits and also following the procedure under Sections 18 and 19 of Right to Information Act within the time to be fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the main writ petition, the relief is sought for by passing an order by this Court in directing the first respondent/State Information Commissioner, Teynampet, Chennai to dispose of the complaint/representation dated 24.02.2016, in accordance with law, on merits and also by adopting the procedure enshrined under Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, within a period to be determined by this Court. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ St...
Prabakaran and Another Vs. Thomas Udayar (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in CRP(NPD)(MD)No.727 of 2011:This revision is filed under Section 115of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order made in I.A.No.82 of 2009 in O.S.No.912 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 13.12.2010. Prayer in CRP(NPD)(MD)No.728 of 2011:This revision is filed under Section 115of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order made in I.A.No.84 of 2009 in O.S.No.909 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 13.10.2010.) Common Order 1. These revisions are directed against the order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy and made in I.A.No.82 of 2009 in O.S.No.912 of 2002 and in I.A.No.84 of 2009 of O.S.No.909 of 2002, dated 13.10.2010 respectively. 2. The first respondent as plaintiff instituted the suit against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement, dated 27.03.2000. The petitioner filed his written statement, but subsequently due to his absence, an ex-parte decree was...
Rajamani Vs. Renugadevi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying call for the records from the learned Family Judge, Dindigul in M.C.No.51 of 2014, dated 21.08.2015 and set aside the same.) 1. Challenging the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, to the respondents 1 to 3 in M.C.No.51 of 2015 ordered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, this revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 are the revision petitioner's wife and sons respectively. He is employed in Border Security Force(BSF). He is guarding the border, but it is alleged that he has not maintain his family. This matter was adjudicated by the learned Family Court Judge, Dindigul. 3. Both sides have not filed the salary receipt of the revision petitioner. Based on the admission of RW1 to the effect that he is receiving Rs.29,000/- per month, the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, directed the BSF Jawan to pay Rs.5,000/-p.m. each to the respon...
N. ChandrabBabu Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the passport of the petitioner bearing Passport No. Z2971459 forthwith and pass such other and further suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the writ petition to the effect that 'I may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a Criminal Revision Petition'. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file Criminal Revision Petition before the competent forum. No costs....
A. Amal Antony Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in Trichy and a social activist, fighting for the noble cause of common public. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed several RTI application, seeking information from various departments in order to bring out the shortfalls, on account of which, the petitioner is ...
S. Gomathi Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to survey the petitioner's lands in Survey Nos.139/2C1, 160/1b, 165/7A1, 166/2A2, 166/2B2, 169/2B2, 169/3C, 177/3A, 177/3D, 197/3, 198/5A2, 245/6B, 327/2B1, 434/2D, 177/3A1, 172/2, 171/2 and 175/8A, situating in Ilamchembur Village, Mudhukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and consequently, to fix its boundaries as per the revenue records by considering the petitioner's applications dated 22.04.2016 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2016 is pending on the file of third respondent/Tahsildar, Mudhukulathur Taluk Office, Mudhukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, without any disposal whatsoever, this Court, at this stage, simpliciter, directs the third respo...
Muniyandi and Another Vs. State represented through The Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.30(A) of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai filed against the judgment passed in Calendar Case No.130 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and set-aside the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.30(A) of 20112 dated 04.11.2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.) 1. Now the short and simple question is whether like a suit or appeal suit, a criminal appeal could be dismissed for default. 2. In this respect a civil case is different from a criminal case. In Civil Law, exparte disposal, dismissal for default is well known. But it is unknown in criminal law. Under the Criminal procedure, there is no exparte disposal, exparte conviction, exparte sentence. An accused cannot be punished without a hearing. 3. As per Article 22(1) of the Constitutio...
Asirvatham Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, 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....
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »