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.
Velu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register the case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 25.04.2014.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to direct the second respondent to register the case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 25.04.2014. 2. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that the petitioner died and no one represent on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In view of the above stated position, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction....
Ramasamy Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register a case for an alleged offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC on the basis of the petitioner's complaint given to the second respondent dated 08.05.2014.) 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement, made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
S. Senthil Kumaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Respondent No.2 to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 14.12.2012 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to direct the Respondent No.2 to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 14.12.2012 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given complaint to the second respondent on 14.12.2012, 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 ha...
S. Anusuya Vs. The Secretary to Government Social Welfare and NMP Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(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 records relating to the second respondent herein in R.C.No.12187/Admn 5 (3) / 2004 dated 8.1.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to retire the petitioner from service with effect from 31.3.2008 after regularising the suspension period and out of employment period from 9.2.2007 to 31.3.2008 as duty for all purposes and confer the retirement benefits with all attendant and consequential benefits with due regard to the petitioner seniority.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal, dated 18.1.2008, under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules challenging the...
S. Karthikeyan and Others Vs. K. Deepa
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in M.C.No.60/2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to call for the records in M.C.No.60/2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent herein has preferred a private complaint under Sections 200 and 190(a) Cr.P.C to take action against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 109 r/w 494, 467, 468 and 471 IPC stating that the accused/first petitioner got married with the respondent on 27.05.2001 and due to the lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a male child on 22.05.2002, and the second child was born on 08.07.2004, because of the ill-treatment, she w...
Suganya Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second Respondent, the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Pudukkottai to register the case on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2011.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the second Respondent, the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Pudukkottai to register the case on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2011. 2. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's mother gave a complaint and on that basis a case was registered on 25.08.2015 in Crime No.301 of 2015 as "Man Missing" . 3. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction....
Sheik Dawood and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 18.04.2014 and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to the second respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 18.04.2014 and investigate the same in accordance with law. 2. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 18.04.2014, a case in Crime No.676 of 2015 was registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of Indian Penal Code on 11.10.2015. 3. In view of the above stated position, the respondent is directed to investigate the case in Crime No.676 of 2015 and file a final report in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 4. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction....
S. Ramesh Vs. The State through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction, dated 24.10.2008, made in S.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, [PCR Cases], Thanjavur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, [PCR Cases], Thanjavur. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By Judgment dated 24.10.2008, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and t...
A.R. Krishnamoorthy Vs. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to admit this Quash petition on file, to call for the records in Cr.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the District Crime Branch Police, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same.) 1. This petition is filed seeking for a prayer to call for the records in Crime No.1 of 2013 on the file of the District Crime Branch Police, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the investigation has been conducted and the action was dropped. 3. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
Akilan Vs. Christy
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969 praying this Court to set aside the fair order and decreetal order made in Spl.I.D.O.P.No.04 of 2009, dated 25.7.2012 on the file I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) This appeal is by an husband as against his wife as his appeal to her for divorce since not appealing, the Court dismissed it. . 2. The appellant came across the respondent by quirk of events, They happen to live in opposite houses in Srirangam. He fell in love with her. And she also. For them love is blind. No caste, no religion is barrier. Though they belongs to different religion, the lovers have decided to become spouses. They have undergone a form of marriage on 10.01.2002 before the Marriage Officer, Tiruchirappalli under the Special Marriage Act, their marriage was registered and Marriage Certificate was also issued to them. According to the appellant, it is only a paper marriage,they were name-sake spouses as after ...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »