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.
Karpagaraja and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Madurai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to pass an order permitting the petitioner to surrender before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in connection with Crime No.373 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and his bail application may be directed to be considered on the same day on merits and in accordance with law forthwith.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST in Crime No.373 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, move this petition seeking a direction to the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, to accept the surrender of the petitioner and consider his bail application on the same day on merits, in relating to Crime No.373 of 2015. 3. Perused the records. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. 5. The ...
Dr.M. Kumaresan Vs. The Union of India, rep by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent through the publication in Sub Section 3 of Section 3 in Part II of the Gazette of India in its issue No.583, S.O.No.667(E) on 29.3.2012, and the second respondent in notification Na.Ka.834/2009 dated 16.5.2012 published in daily thanthi dated 17.5.2012 without following the due process of law as void ab initio and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a practicing surgeon and that he is having his nursing home, at Salem. All his family members are doctors and they are rendering service to the society, in the medical field. The petitioner had intended to develop his nursing home to serve the people in the locality. While so, the respondents had acquired parts of the lands belonging to him, in piecemeal, defeati...
M. Iyyappan Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Developme ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, Thoothukudi, dated 23.05.2013 in Uoo.Ni.5/1090/2013 and the consequential notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 04.06.2013 in Aa4/10055/2013 and quash the same.) 1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, Thoothukudi, dated 23.05.2013 in Uoo.Ni.5/1090/2013 and the consequential notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 04.06.2013 in Aa4/10055/2013 and quash the same. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the communication sent by the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur, dated 04.06.2013 proposed to convene a meeting to ascertain the views of the members for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat President under Section 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats A...
M. Maryammal Vs. The District Collector-cum- Inspector of Panchayat, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the impugned second show cause notice issued by him in Oo.Ni.5/0597/2014 dated 03.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented that the petitioner has already been removed from the post of President. Since he has already been removed from the post of President, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has to work out his remedy under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Therefore, nothing survives in the present Writ Petition. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, if he so desires. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
Dr.B. Shivkumar Vs. Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTR ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in anyway shifting the existing SP Koil Taramani “ 230 KV DC HT line, running for the past 15 years in another land, into the petitioner's land at S.No.17/2B in Pudupakkam Village.) 1. The petitioner is the owner of the property to an extent of 8 acres and 40 cents comprised in Survey No.17/2B, Pudupakkam Village, Chengulpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The said land has been purchased for setting up of a joint venture with the Italian company and it is in the process. 2. When things stood so, the respondents entered into the property for the purpose of erecting HT lines in the petitioner's property. Immediately, the petitioner objected the attempt of the respondents by making a representation to the Chairman directly on 03.10.2015 and also sent a representation through post. In spite of that, without following the procedure, the respondents are attempting to erect a tower. Therefore, the p...
K. Radhika and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(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 the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2015 lodged by the petitioner.) 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 the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2015 lodged by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent as early as on 23.09.2015, but, however, the second respondent police has 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 on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in C.S.R.No.43 of 2015 is pending. He would further submit that the petitio...
Gomathi and Another Vs. P. Raja
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order made in M.C.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai dated 30.04.2015 as illegal and allow the revision petition insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned and 2nd petitioner is concerned, maintenance amount may be enhanced.) The wife can go to any employment and earn money and she can maintain herself and therefore, she is not eligible to claim any maintenance ?, so saying the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai dismissed the petition of wife, though ordering maintenance of minor son at Rs.3,000/- per month. This order is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Facts: The wife and the son of the respondent herein are the revision petitioners. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place on 08.11.2010 and out of wedlock the 2nd respondent was born on 29.08.2011. The respondent had to frequently visit for...
Jeyanthi Vs. Jeyapaul
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in Crl.A.No.76 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and set aside the judgment dated 26.11.2013, confirming the order dated 26.08.2011 passed in M.C.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.) 1. Alleging violence in domestic relationship, the aggrieved party, namely, the wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the P.W.D.V.Act ?) before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi. 2. The Court, after conducting enquiry, gave a finding that the allegation of domestic violence is not proved and that the claim of maintenance should be made in an appropriate Court. Challenging the same, the wife filed appeal before the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.76 of 2012. The order pa...
M. Lakshmi and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police St ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and quash the same against the petitioner as illegal.) 1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking to call for the records in C.C. No.110 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District and quash the same, stating that the petitioners are facing the charges under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 2(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, no woman can be punished for the offence of Women Harassment Act, and that has been decided by this Court in the judgment in Basheer Ahamed and others -vs- State rep.by the Inspector of Police, W 13, All Women Police Statio...
K. Sivakumar Vs. The District Employment Office, Vellore District and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner K.Sivakumar to the second respondent for selection of bus conductor and transfer for the spot of bus conductor.) 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 Mandamus directing the first respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the second respondent for being selected as a bus conductor and for further orders. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has not given the necessary particulars, with regard to the selection being made, by the second respondent, for the post of bus conductor. Further, the petitioner has also not stated as to how he is entitled to be considered for being selected to the post of bus conductor, by the secon...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »