Chennai Court February 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.
James Raj Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Cr.M.P.No.323 of 2015 in S.C.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Cr.M.P.No.323 of 2015 in S.C.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that this petitioner/accused had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws.1 to 9. The Trial Court had dismissed the said application in respect of recalling P.Ws.1 to 5 and this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.G. vs. Shivakumar Yad...
Manisha K. Kawad @ Lakshmi Vs. Tarun I. Tater
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife against the quantum of alimony made in O.P. No. 1182 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Chennai and sought enhancement of the same. 2. The appellant/wife and the respondent/husband got married on 24.11.2008 and thereafter, during March 2010, the respondent/husband filed O.P. No. 1182 of 2010 before the Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The wife filed counter and also M.P. No. 668 of 2010 seeking remedies under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act viz., Protection order and also Monetary Relief. The trial court, by order dated 30.09.2011, allowed the said petition and directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife and also directed him to return back the Shridhana articles, silver and other belongings of the wife. Subsequently, both sides contested the matter and the trial court, after taking into...
V. Bakthavachalam Vs. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Devel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in G.O.(3D) No.5, Housing and Urban Development [UD-VI(1)] Department dated 8.1.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the structure of the Petitioner in Door No.18, New No.4, Aranganathan Subway Road, Saidapet, Chennai 15.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent in G.O.(3D)No.5, Housing and Urban Development [UDVI( 1)] Department dated 08.01.2016 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of a consequential order by this Court in directing the Respondents to regularise his structure at Door No.18, New No.4, Aranganathan Subway Road, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The 2nd Respondent, while passing the impugned order in G.O. (3D)No.5, Housing and...
D. Nainar Raj Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commission ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 02.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 02.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 02.02.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 02.02.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or drop action otherwise. With the above direction, this Criminal...
Duraisamy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondent No. 2 to register FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.12.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Respondent No. 2 to register FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.12.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint, it is seen that the petitioner has entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party for purchase of cassava, in connection with which, a dispute has arisen. The matter appears to be purely civil in nature and in order to give a criminal colour to it, the petitioner has stated that he has been abused by his caste. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations in the complaint, this Court is of the view that no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR in this case. ...
S. Ravi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 11.01.2016 and take necessary action in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd Respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 11.01.2016 and take necessary action in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 11.01.2016, it is seen that the dispute essentially appears to be civil in nature and in order to give criminal colour to it, the petitioner has stated that he has been intimidated. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. With the above observation, this Criminal Or...
Periya Muniandi @ Muniandi Vs. State Rep. by The Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 29.04.2015 within a stipulated period of time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 29.04.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by the petitioner's brother, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2015. 3. In view of the above submission, this Court is of the view that no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register a fresh FIR on the complaint dated 29.04.2015, said to have been given by the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed....
Tvl. Kanishga Maligai Vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in S.P. No.20/2016 in VAT AP.No.356/2015 dated 22.01.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to accept the personal bond to be executed by the petitioner in lieu of security.) 1. Aggrieved against the conditions imposed by the appellate authority, while granting stay, the petitioner firm is before this Court. 2. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the direction of the second respondent the petitioner firm has already paid Rs.23,426/- towards the disputed tax. For the balance amount, the appellate authority directed the petitioner firm to file a Security Bond or Bank Guarantee. However, the petitioner firm is not ...
Vasantha Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the investigation in Cr. No.685 of 2014 from 4th respondent to 3rd respondent or any other independent/impartial/investigating agency and file a final report within the stipulated period which this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in Cr. No.685 of 2014 from 4th respondent to 3rd respondent or any other independent/impartial/investigating agency and file a final report within the stipulated period which this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 3. It is seen that Mr.Rajasekar, Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Virudhunagar District has filed a status report in which he has narrated the steps that have been taken by him in the investigation of the case in Crime No.685 of 2014. In Paragraph No.3 of the status report, he has stated as follows: 3. It is furthe...
Pavunsamy Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madurai and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 21.09.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 21.09.2015 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 21.09.2015 has been sent by post to the respondents. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 1st respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 21.09.2015. On receipt of such complaint by the 1st respondent, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »