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.
Venkatachalam Vs. The District Superintendent of Police and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 and 380 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 24.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 427 and 380 IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 24.03.2016. 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. The allegation in the complaint is that the proposed accused persons conspired together, impersonated and created fake documents, as if they are the owners of the property in S.No.447, which belongs to the petitioner. Since no action was taken on the complaint lod...
Saratha Vs. The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 29.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.9231 of 2012.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the W.A(MD)No.742 of 2012 which is also against the same common order has been dismissed on 10th April 2014, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal. 2. Accordingly, permission is accorded and the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 92 days caused in preferring the appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate/Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in S.T.C.No.5 of 2006, a cheque bouncing case. 2. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court on 05.04.2016 in Crl.A (MD) No.99 of 2015 (S.Ganapathy and N.Senthilvel and batch cases) in paragraph 31 held as under: 31. Since, subsequent to the Full Bench reference, the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh interpreted these provisions, we are duty bound to follow the same to the extent it binds us. With that in mind and in the light of the above legal precedents and the discussion, we answer the questions posed by the Referral Judge as follows:- (1) A victim of the crime, who has prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, has a statutory right of appeal within the limits prescribed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. (2) A complainant (in a private complaint), who is not a victim, has a ...
Shanmugapandian Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur to receive the petition dated 01.04.2016 filed under Section 70(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and recall the NBW without insisting the petitioner to surrender in connection with a case in S.T.C.No.183 of 2015.) 1. It is a petition seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur to receive the petition dated 01.04.2016 filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and recall the NBW without insisting upon the personal presence of the accused in S.T.C.No.183 of 2015. 2. Case is pending against the accused/petitioner in STC No.183 of 2015. When the case was posted for hearing on 28.03.2016, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and that made the Trial Court to issue NBW against the petitioner. This warrant is sought to be recalled without the petitioner being present before the Trial Court. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing fo...
Ramar @ Ramakrishnan Vs. The State, rep.by Inspector of Police Avaniya ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: (in C.R.L.RC(MD) No.111 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.377 of 2015 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madurai and quashing the same. (in C.R.L.RC(MD) No.137 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.376 of 2015 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madurai and quashing the same.) 1. As both the revisions are connected, this common order is being passed. 2. The revision petitioner, who is A1 in S.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has directed Crl.R.C.(MD) No.137 of 2016 to revise the Order of the Trial Court dismissing his Cr.M.P.No.376 of 2015 filed to exempt him from surrendering before the Trial Court to reca...
P. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent not to harass him in the guise of investigation.) 1. It is an application seeking a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner herein in the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the presence of the petitioner is required only for the purpose of interrogation, as a case has been registered against him. 4. If the presence of the petitioner is required for interrogation, the respondent is directed to issue notice/summon fixing the place, date and time of enquiry/interrogation and to let off the petitioner after the closure of enquiry. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent assured that except following the procedure stated supra, the petitioner shall not be called to the Police Station and this un...
J. Bill Clinton and Another Vs. The Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction the education loan by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2016.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the typed set of papers of the writ petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Balakrishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondent No.2 to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.04.2016 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.04.2016 and proceed with the same as per law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from Adilingaperumal on 15.10.2013 by executing a mortgage deed in favour of the accused; that even though the recital in the mortgage deed stipulates payments of interest, the proposed accused was demanding exorbitant interest; that it made the petitioner to pledge his jewels and to borrow money to pay that exorbitant interest; that the proposed accused cheated the petitioner and go...
M.S. Rajasekaran Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal dated 04.04.2016 to refund the deposited amount of Rs.6, 25, 894/- to the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the Proprietor of Palanikumar Transports, Pattukottai and in the year 1990, he was appointed as a Transport Contractor by the 2nd respondent/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region through open tender. Since then, the transport contract is being extended periodically. 4. During the course of business, the 2nd respondent/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region, directed the petitioner to transport 550 bags of rice from Ammanpettai Modern Rice Mill to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thiruvall...
Kasi Raja and Another Vs. Siva Sakthikala
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 04.04.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1317 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Tuticorin.) 1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tuticorin, condoning the delay of 20 days caused in preferring the private complaint for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. This revision is at the instance of the accused. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that no sufficient reason has been adduced. And nothing to substantiate the allegation that the notice issued by the previous lawyer has been misplaced. In the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Court below is not in accordance with law. 4. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the materials ...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »