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.
Raymond Vs. Anton Selvakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Tr.C.M.P.No.544/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli dated 24.07.2015 in C.C.No.276/14 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor.) 1. This revision arises out of dismissal of a transfer civil miscellaneous petition by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 2. The fight before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in a cheque bouncing case in C.C.No276/2014 is as between a lawyer and a non-lawyer. Complainant is a Lawyer. The accused is a retired teacher. The calendar case reached the stage of examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused apprehending that she may not get fair justice, because no lawyer came forward to defend her, filed Tr.C.M.P.No.554 of 2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli to transfer the case to to any Magistrate's Court in Tirunelveli. 3. The learned Chief J...
Muthumari Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members in the guise of enquiry.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent police not to harass her and her family members in the guise of enquiry. 2. It is seen that a case is pending against the petitioner's husband, namely, Sankarapandi, against whom, several criminal cases are stated to be pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a child aged about 1 years and that she has already appeared before the respondent police in connection with an enquiry and therefore, she may not be called for any further enquiry. 4. There is an undertaking on the side of the respondents that the petitioner will not be called for enquiry, as her presence is no more required in this case. 5. Recording the said undertaking given by the respondents, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
M. Lakshmi and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board, Repre ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta to the Petitioner land in S.No.81/1B in an extent of two acres situated at Veeralapatti Branch, Virupatchi Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 28.03.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, she has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta in her favour in in S.No.81/1B measuring to an extent of two acres situated at Veeralapatti Branch, Virupatchi Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District by considering her representation, dated 28.03.2016. 4. The Petitioner claims that she belongs to the economically weaker section(Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyar Community) ...
M. Lakshmi Vs. Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board, Chennai and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta to the Petitioner land in S.No.81/1B in an extent of two acres situated at Veeralapatti Branch, Virupatchi Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 28.03.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, she has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant patta in her favour in in S.No.81/1B measuring to an extent of two acres situated at Veeralapatti Branch, Virupatchi Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District by considering her representation, dated 28.03.2016. 4. The Petitioner claims that she belongs to the economically weaker section(Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyar Community) ...
M/s. Visalakshi Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Srithar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 11.04.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016 which is decided on 11th April 2016. In paragraph '4' of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is pointed out that the factual controversy can be better resolved by the petitioner by approaching the appellate authority. 2. The apprehension of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that if any appeal is preferred, it is beyond the limitation period as the time provided by the statute has already expired. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has rightly drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the appellate authority was directed to consider the matter on merits. 4. Hence, it goes without saying that the competent authority has to cons...
S.V. Raghunath Vs. The Inspector of Police,Thenkasi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner based on the complaint submitted by one Raja under the guise of enquiry.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioner based on the complaint submitted by one Raja under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, the petitioner's presence is absolutely required for interrogation in respect of the complaint submitted by the Manager of Aarthi Scan Centre. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation; but according to the case of the petitioner herein, it is just a case of cash missing from his hands, while he was travelling. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the appearance of the petitioner is required for interrogati...
Malaiyayee Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.174 of 2015 dated 24.10.2015 and to file a final report under the supervision of the 1st respondent.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.174 of 2015 dated 24.10.2015 and to file a final report under the supervision of the 1st respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The petitioner is stated to be an agricultural coolie. It is alleged that on 24.10.2015, when the petitioner's husband and his friends were riding two wheel motor cycles, one container lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's husband Chandran; that the deceased died on the spot. On the same day, a complaint has been preferred and a case has been registered in Crime No.174 of 2015 for an offence under Sect...
J. Sasikala Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), based on the complaint lodged by one Sankar as against the petitioner, enquiry has been conducted and it has been subsequently closed. He has further submitted that since the complaint has already been closed, there is no scope for harassment at all. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Sivanpandian Vs. The Home Secretary, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent nos 1 to 4 to strictly instruct the respondent no.5 for not to prevent the petitioner and his family members from catching fishes in Karairuppukulam, Karaiuppu, Tirunelveli District and not to harass the petitioner and his family members by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 21.04.2016.) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to strictly instruct the respondent no.5 not to prevent the petitioner and his family members from catching fishes in Karairuppukulam, Karaiuppu, Tirunelveli District and also not to harass the petitioner and his family members; that a representation dated 21.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents 1 to 4 and hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that few cases are pending against t...
Anthony Manuvel Raj Vs. State rep.by its Inspector of Police, Theni Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in Cr.M.P.No.5 of 2016 dated 2.03.2016 and set aside the same.) 1. This criminal revision has been directed as against the dismissal of the protest petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.5/2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, by his order dated 22.03.2016. 2. This revision arose in the following circumstances : The revision petitioner's father Vedamanickam stated to have owned Tractor No. TN 45 D 5133 and Trailer No.TN 45 D 5331. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, alleging that while his father was bedridden, the accused had forged the signature of his sick father and effected name transfer of the said vehicle in his name. In Crl.M.P.No.1715/2015, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate directed the respondent/Inspector of Police, Theni, to conduct i...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »