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. Sowrirajan and Another Vs. The Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue ...
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 direct the second respondent to rearrange the 'C' list prepared for the year 2011-2012 by following the first respondent proceedings dated 11.6.2008 in O.Mu.No.9546/Aaa1/2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.6.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.6.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame specified by this Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this court passing such an order. 3. In such circumstances...
P. Sankaranarayanan Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Palam Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give the permission and police protection for conducting Aadal Paadal Dance Programme on 18.10.2015 for the Arulmigu Sri Viswanatha Selvi Amman Temple situates at Salai Street, Sindhupoondurai, Tirunelveli Junction-627 001 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 08.10.2015.) 1. Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give the permission and police protection for conducting Aadal Paadal Dance Programme on 18.10.2015 for the Arulmigu Sri Viswanatha Selvi Amman Temple situates at Salai Street, Si...
P. Manikandan and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and ...
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 respondents 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the respondents 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry. 3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one Karpagavalli, petition enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed in C.S.R.No.938 of 2015 . 4. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. However, in case of conducting any enquiry, the third respondent is directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610....
Sundarambal Vs. The District Collector, (Inspector of Panchayat), Pudu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Na.Ka.No.A3/3016/2015 (Vu), dated 30.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide the petitioner's powers to function as a President of Veppangudi Village Panchayat, Thiruvarangulam Union, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District without any disturbance.) 1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Na.Ka.No.A3/3016/2015 (Vu), dated 30.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide the petitioner's powers to function as a President of Veppangudi Village Panchayat, Thiruvarangulam Union, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District without any disturbance. 2. The petitioner is th...
Ponpandi Vs. The State rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli ...
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 Inspector of Police, Muneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli City, the second respondent herein, to expedite the investigation in Crime No.235 of 2014 pending on his file and further direct him to complete the same and to file the final report within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for a directionto direct the Inspector of Police, Muneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli City, the second respondent herein, to expedite the investigation in Crime No.235 of 2014 pending on his file and further direct him to complete the same and to file the final report within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the final report has already been fi...
Thangeswaran and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thisayanvilai Po ...
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 respondent not to harass the petitioner on the basis of the complaint dated 30.09.2015 without due process of law.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the respondent not to harass the petitioner on the basis of the complaint dated 30.09.2015 without due process of law. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, would submit that the complaint given by Balasubramanian, petition enquiry is pending in C.S.R.No.441 of 2015. He further submits that the respondent has no harassment against the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 4. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, since the issue involved between the parties is civil in nature, the respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under th...
R. Krishnan Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport ...
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 respondents to afford job opportunity to the petitioner by attending the interview for the post of conductor by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.7.2012.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. He had also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs....
P. Ganesan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli an ...
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 respondents police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 01.09.2015.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the respondents police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 01.09.2015. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent as early as on 01.09.2015, but, however, 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 in Current Paper No.G7/56105/4335/15, petition enquiry is pending. 4. Considering the rival submission made on both sides, the second respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and follow the...
Rajesh and Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruchit ...
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 relating to C.C.No.192 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai and quash the same.) 1. The quash petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to call for the records relating to C.C.No.192 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai and quash the same. 2. It is seen that the alleged offences attributed against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 324, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent appeared in person and their identification is also verified by this Court and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent filed a memo of compromise stating that since the matter has been compromised, the second respondent agreed to quash the above said case in co...
Ravichandran and Others Vs. Arumuga Kondiar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 30.04.2015 made in I.A.Nos.85 and 86 of 2014 in O.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam and dismiss the said I.A.) 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of District Court, Nagapattinam. The 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff in the suit. 2. The 1st defendant, who is the first 1st respondent herein filed interim applications in I.A.Nos.85 and 86 of 2014 to examine him first and also through an Advocate Commissioner. Both the applications were allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 30.04.2015. These revision petitions are against the aforesaid orders. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the 1st respondent, who is the father of the plaintiff, is in collusion with the plaintiff and therefore, the application of the 1st respondent...