Chennai Court October 2015 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. Sugumar Vs. Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records from the second respondent quash the order of the second respondent dated 1.2.2011 bearing Su.Thu.Na.Ka.No.Ka.P.A1/274/2011 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the first respondent Corporation in suitable post on compassionate appointment.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order of the second respondent, dated 1.2.2011, and to consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the first respondent Corporation, in a suitable post, on compassionate ground. 3. The petitioner has stated that his father, G.Musaliah, was working as a bullock cart driver in the 'D' Cattle Field Health Departmen...
K. Appasamy and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 03.04.2014 and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. On 14.10.2015, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, hence the matter was ordered to be posted today i.e., on 16.10.2015 under the caption 'for dismissal'. 2. Even today when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for non prosecution....
K. Nagarajan Vs. Ponnusamy, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the Contemnor / Respondent, for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of his Court, dated 11.02.2014 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11434 of 2013.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this Contempt Application, under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prayingto punish the Contemnor / Respondent, for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of his Court, dated 11.02.2014 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11434 of 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. Since the Government has come forward with an application for extension of time for executing the NBW to trace the accused, for six months stating that after the accused was convicted in S.C.No.551 of 1994, dated 10.10.1995, against which the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.861 of 1995, and suspension of sentence has been ordered. Subsequen...
P. Elangovan Vs. Pondevaki and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in M.C.No.74 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai dated 15.09.2014.) The only dayin your life, when you cried, your mother was smiling - meaning thereby, except at the time when the child indicates to the world that it has been brought into existence, by crying, the mother will not tolerate the cry of the child during rest of his life. This was the great salute to all the mothers when the former President of India, Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam defined 'Birth Day' to a query raised by the British Broadcasting Corporation. 2. Matha, Pitha, Guru, Theivam, is the phrase admired and appreciated in Indian tradition as Matha (mother) occupies always the first position, in the order of priority in the list of persons to be worshipped. 3. This is a case, where one out of the two sons of the widowed mother, one of the sons (petitioner in M.C.No.74 of 2012), viz. Elangovan, challenges th...
Madurai Yagappanagar Muslim Jamaat Noorul-Hudha Jumma Pallivasal Socie ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Manadamus calling for the records pertaining to the communication dated 09.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the pending Document No.45/2012 on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the property comprised in UDR S.No.98/3 of an extent of 3723 sq.ft situated at Vandiyoor II Bit Village in Resurvey No.246/3 A comprised in Patta No.377 and to return the original documents to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 09.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent (Sub-Registrar, Theppakulam) directing the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from the Wakf Board for registration of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- 2-1. The petitioner is the Society viz., Madurai...
Pappayee Vs. R. Sundharam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 20.03.2015 made in I.A.No.40 of 2014 in O.S.No.549 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem.) 1. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.549 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff therein. The said suit was filed seeking for permanent injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in schedule A and B. 2. The 1st defendant/revision petitioner filed a written statement stating that there is a three feet pathway on the Eastern boundary of the 'A' schedule property and the same is deliberately not shown by the plaintiff with an intention to encroach upon the pathway. According to the revision petitioner, the three feet pathway also forms part of the front yard of the house of the revision petitioner. Hence, the revision petitioner along with other defendants fil...
K. Rajendran Vs. State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kanyak ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.131 of 2007 dated 18.08.2011.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.131 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 18.08.2011, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Thangam @ Thangamari. She was already married to one Mr.Gopal. Through him, she had two children. After the birth of the children, she got herself separated from Mr.Gopal and started living with the...
Mookayee and Others Vs. State rep. by its The Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second Respondent to register a case on the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 01.08.2014.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the second Respondent to register a case on the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 01.08.2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given complaint to the second respondent on 01.08.2014, but the second respondent police had not taken any steps to register a case and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief. 3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed in CSR.No.168 of 2014 on 02.08.2014. 4. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), this ...
M. Vasantha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Ti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner.) 1. The Criminal Original Petition has been listed today, under the caption, For Clarification ?, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, the common order, dated 29.09.2015, in which the present Criminal Original Petition has been dismissed stating that there is no petition or FIR is pending as against the petitioner and that there is no such harassment on the part of the respondent police. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the orders passed by this Court, dated 29.09.2015. 4. Perusal of the order, dated 29.09.2015 would reveal that it has been passed wrongly and therefore, the order passed in respect of th...
Renuga and Another Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.70 of 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Court established under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act Cases, Madurai and quash the same.) Common Order 1. The petitioners have come forward with these applications for quashing the respective charge sheets on the file of the Special Court, established under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act Cases, Madurai, raising two grounds that charge sheets have been filed against 38 persons stating that all are responsible for the administration of the Firm, but they are not produced any documents to show that how they are responsible. Secondly, at the time of filing the final reports, the validity of the enactment has been under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2. I have heard the submissions mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »